FINE WINES AND SPIRITS: Faces "Leach" Suit Over Overtime PayFIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Caldera Sues Over Illegal Collection CallsFISHER HOMES: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Ayala" SuitFKG OIL: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over ADA ViolationFLINT, MI: May Need Two Years to Be Able to Treat Own Water

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an IT consultant providinginformation technology support to Defendant's clients inCalifornia. 314e Corporation provides information technology andeducational services for the healthcare industry across thecountry. 314e maintains its corporate headquarters in Fremont,California.

AETNA HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of "Richardson" Insurance Case------------------------------------------------------------Beverly A. Richardson, individually, and on behalf of othermembers of the general public similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.Aetna Health of California Inc., Strategic Resource Company, anAetna Company and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00899385-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., January 23, 2017) is removedto the U.S. District Court of Central California on March 2, 2017under Case No. 8:17-cv-00377.

On March 9, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case.The Motion is set for hearing on April 17, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.before Judge James V. Selna.

Richardson alleges Aetna of unjust enrichment for acceptingpremiums without the possibility of coverage under her groupbenefits plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct of 1974 and in violation of California Business andProfessions Code. Plaintiff enrolled in a series of Aetnainsurance plans online, including a Short Term Disability Plan.

Aetna Health of California Inc. is an insurance companyincorporated under the laws of Connecticut with its principalplace of business in Hartford, Connecticut.

Air Resources operates with the function of placing employees inthe energy, process and infrastructure industries, managing thesesame employees at the various projects where it assigns them towork. Plaintiffs were assigned to the ExxonMobil Chemical Companyfacilities in Texas. Hernandez was assigned in Baytown as FieldSafety Team Member while Elizondo and Rios in Mont Belvieu as PESHES Advisor and Safety Advisor respectively.

ALL-AMERICAN PIPELINE: Fishermen's Class Action Can Proceed-----------------------------------------------------------Tracy Lehr, writing for KEYT, reports that a U.S. District Courtjudge gave a green light to the first class action lawsuit filedagainst Plains All-American Pipeline, but the ruling won't allowall the plaintiffs to move forward right now.

Leila Noel of the Cappello & Noel law firm in Santa Barbara saidthe judge only certified the class action lawsuit on behalf offishing businesses affected by the 140,000 gallon spill off theGaviota Coast in May 2015.

The firm is one of four representing plaintiffs.

But Ms. Noel said the judge was not ready to certify subclassesincluding tourist businesses, property owners and oil industryworkers.

She said they would have to narrow the groups for consideration.

Attorneys hope to move quickly to consolidate the class actionlawsuit that could lead to a jury trial in Los Angeles or asettlement.

A spokeswoman for Plains said the oil company does not comment onpending litigation.

Fisherman at the wharf in Santa Barbara on March 6 said crab,cucumber and shrimp fishermen may have felt the biggest financialloss.

Some people received reimbursements from the Texas-based oilcompany during the clean-up.

They also signed paperwork, but Noel said that does not mean theyhave lost their right to join the class action lawsuit entitledAndrews et al v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline.Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or providedreimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants atsupracompetitive prices.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place ofbusiness in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributorof generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place ofbusiness in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division iscalled Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer anddistributor of generic digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of businessin Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a genericversion of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets.

Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its globalheadquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrativeheadquarters in New Jersey.

Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceuticalcompany based in the Netherlands.

Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc. is a corporation organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal placeof business at 3301 Benson Drive, Suite 401, Raleigh, NorthCarolina.

West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. is based in Eatontown, New Jerseyand is the U.S. agent and subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC.It has a New Jersey production facility for digoxin.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized andexisting under the laws of the State of Delaware with itsprincipal place of business at 12 Christopher Way, Suite 300,Eatontown, New Jersey.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Fraud-------------------------------------------------------Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that amechanic at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is suingAmerican Airlines for fraud, claiming he was recruited under afast-track pay program that was dropped two months after he washired in 2015.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 28 in Cook County Circuit Court, seeksclass-action status and was brought by Thomas Ballard on behalf ofpotentially "hundreds of employees" who allegedly had their two-year flight to "top-scale" pay abruptly grounded by the airline.

Mr. Ballard was a 24-year aviation mechanic making more than $30an hour working for another airline when he met with AmericanAirlines in March 2015. The flex incentive program, which hadbeen in place for about a year, offered credit for previousemployment and a two-year track to a top-of-scale hourly wage of$48, according to the lawsuit.

Hired in June 2015 to work for American as an aviation maintenancetechnician at O'Hare, Mr. Ballard took a pay cut to $25.70 perhour under the premise that he could nearly double his pay withintwo years. By August, just several months removed from a "secureposition" with another employer, Mr. Ballard learned that Americanwas rescinding the incentive program, meaning it would take himeight years -- not two -- to reach the top pay rate, the lawsuitalleges.

"That's one heck of an incentive to people, saying you can go fromA to B a lot quicker and faster and better than you could before,"Larry Drury, a Chicago-based attorney representingMr. Ballard in the lawsuit, said on March 8. "Unfortunately, ithas not turned out that way."

American Airlines spokeswoman Leslie Scott said the company can'tcomment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit alleges that American was already in discussions withrepresentatives of the Transport Workers Union of America Local591 to drop the program at the time Mr. Ballard was hired.

Brian Friedman, TWU Local 591's regional vice president, said onMarch 7 that he was not involved in the negotiations with Americanover the flex program and declined further comment.

The lawsuit alleges that American committed fraud, breach of oralcontract and unjust enrichment and seeks actual, compensatory andpunitive damages for Ballard and other potential members of theclass.

"They breached the agreement, and the agreement goes not only tohim but to all the other persons that we're seeking to representhere, which will become quite substantial," Mr. Drury said. "Wewould like to believe that the court will certify the class, butit's a long process before you get to that point."

Defendants operate as Anthem Sound, Stage and Lighting, a companyowned by Angelo Poulos that specializes in audio, video,intelligent lighting, and effects systems for events, clubs andother entities. Plaintiff worked as an audio technician. Hecomplained of not receiving pay stubs to adequately account ofhours of work as well as unaccounted overtime. He was terminatedafter voicing out his complain.

ASSET RECOVERY: Meola Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA--------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LEONARDO MEOLA, individuallyand on behalf of a class v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, andBUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01017-MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y.), seeks to certify a class, defined as (a)all natural persons with New York addresses (b) who were sent aletter by Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, on behalf of BureausInvestment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, in the form represented byExhibit A (c) which letter was sent on or after a date one yearprior to the filing of this action, and (d) on or before a date 21days after the filing of this action.

Mr. Meola asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection PracticesAct. He further asks that Shaked Law Group, P.C. and Edelman,Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for theclass.

"(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) AT&T placed a non-emergency text message (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system (5) during a time period beginning four years before the filing of this complaint (6) where AT&T did not have consent to send such text message; and

Survey Call Sub-Class:

"(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) AT&T sent a customer satisfaction survey text message (4) using the system(s) that sent the text to Plaintiff (5) during a time period beginning four years before the filing of this complaint (6) where the person was not an AT&T customer".

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act by sending text messages to consumers'cellular telephone numbers using an automated telephone dialingsystem without having the consumers' express consent to receivesuch messages.

AUSTRALIA: NT Class Action Over Juvenile Detention Adjourned------------------------------------------------------------Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that a classaction against the Northern Territory government over thetreatment of juveniles in detention was adjourned on March 8 aheadof a challenge to the federal court's jurisdiction, and pendingthe outcome of a racial discrimination complaint.

Lawyers for the NT government pointed to six other juveniledetention-related civil cases currently before the supreme courtand claimed the federal court had no jurisdiction to hear thematter.

The class action, which lawyers said potentially included 1,800applicants although only 30 had been contacted so far, is expectedto take years to get to trial.

It accuses NT authorities of unlawful discrimination, falseimprisonment, assault and battery, and breach of residual libertyagainst juveniles held in NT correctional facilities, includingthe Don Dale detention centre, over the past 10 years.

On March 8 the case was adjourned until May, pending furthersubmissions as well as the outcome of a complaint to theAustralian Human Rights Commission.

Ben Slade, the Maurice Blackburn lawyer acting for the applicants,said he believed the federal court was right to hear the case.

Speaking outside the court, Mr. Slade said the discriminationcomplaint, which his firm lodged on behalf of the class actionclients in December, would likely be referred to the federalcourt, reinforcing the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

The Australian Human Rights Commission told Guardian Australia acomplaint could only go to the federal court once the complainantand respondent had attempted conciliation, but Maurice Blackburnis seeking to have it sent to the court as a matter of publicinterest.

The complaint, seen by Guardian Australia, claimed racialdiscrimination on the basis that 97% of the NT juvenile detentionpopulation is Indigenous.

It said lead applicants Aaron Hyde and Trevor Jenkings, as well asother class action members, were subject to "excessive,unreasonable, unnecessary, inappropriate and/or unlawful use offorce, restraint, searches, and/or isolation" and were"accommodated in substandard conditions and from time to timedeprived of food, water, clothing and bedding as forms ofpunishment".

"The treatment that our client was subjected to in youth detentioncentres in the Northern Territory would not have occurred if notfor the fact that the overwhelming majority of young people indetention in the Northern Territory are Indigenous Australians."

The arguments mirrored those in the class action.

"This doesn't mean that anyone is saying these young peopleweren't naughty, that they weren't guilty of offences butdeprivation of liberty is the penalty of last resort, it is not totorture people once they get into jail," Slade said.

"Those people need to be compensated if that was done to them andthe government really needs to be called to account over this, andhopefully fix up the system for the future so recidivism rates canfall away."

As well as the class action there have also been also six civilcases, the human rights commission complaint, a since-withdrawncounterclaim against two detainees, and the royal commission.

Any outcome in the civil case was also potentially dependent onother cases, and negotiations with the government outside of trialwould also wait until the royal commission handed down itsfindings, Slade said.

"We thought we should probably let the royal commission run itscourse before that happens, and we wouldn't want this class actionto interfere in any way with the royal commission."

Slade said the government response to civil claims so far had been"a vigorous defence".

In January the deputy chief minister, Nicole Manison, said thegovernment would not comment on the case as it was before thecourts, but said alleged incidents occurred before the MichaelGunner-led government took office.

The NT Labor government, which came to power in August, hascommitted to completely rewrite the Youth Justice Act based onrecommendations from the royal commission.

Both sides of the class action case have until early May toprovide submission outlines and amendments, including the removalfrom the class action of current and former detainees who havealready commenced legal proceedings of their own.

AUSTRALIA: NT Gov't Seeks Dismissal of Juvenile Detainees' Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Hayley Sorensen, writing for NT News, reports that lawyers for theNT Government have sought to have a class action brought againstit by former youth justice detainees thrown out of court.

Young crims Aaron Hyde and Dylan Jenkings are the lead applicantsin the claim brought against the Territory in Federal Court by lawfirm Maurice Blackburn. The statement of claim details a litanyof alleged abuses while they were detained at Don Dale.

In a brief mention on March 8, government lawyers claimed thematter should not be heard by the court as it was outside itsjurisdiction.

Outside court, Maurice Blackburn's Ben Slade said the class actioncould involve up to 1800 former detainees. He said the firm waskeen to talk about a settlement when the time was right.

Hyde has been jailed over a crime spree in 2015, which ended witha 183km/h car crash and the death of his friend, Ashley Richards.

"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche") common stock between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015 (the "Class Period"), inclusive. Excluded from the Class are anyone named as a defendant in this litigation, the present and former officers and directors of any defendants, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest."

The Avalanche Defendants also ask the Court for an order (i)certifying the Class before the Court adjudicates the pendingMotion to Dismiss, (ii) appointing Plaintiffs Arpan Bachhawat andSrikanth Koneru as Class Representatives, and (iii) appointingFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 30, 2017, at 10:00a.m., to consider the Motion.

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Faces Securities Class Action-----------------------------------------------Carina Storrs, writing for KC Register, reports that RobbinsGeller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has beencommenced on behalf of purchasers of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises,Inc., common stock during the period between July 1, 2015 andFebruary 28, 2017 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges B&Wand certain of its officers and directors with violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. B&W is a technology-basedprovider of advanced fossil and renewable power generationequipment that includes a suite of boiler products, environmentalsystems, and services for power and industrial uses.

BEAZER HOMES: Plaintiffs Drop Class Allegations in Arizona Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs have withdrawn the class action allegations againstBeazer Homes USA, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on July 7, 2016 againstthe Company in Maricopa County Arizona Superior Court on behalf ofall homeowners in Arizona that purchased homes from the Companythat included a certain type of roof underlayment. The complaintalleges various construction defects, but principally claims thatthe roof underlayment is susceptible to leaks and was notinstalled in accordance with best practices.

The Company said, "We removed this case to federal court and filedmotions to dismiss the class action allegations on variousgrounds. The plaintiffs have now withdrawn the class actionallegations without prejudice and filed an amended complaint. Inlight of the dismissal of the class action allegations, theCompany is handling this matter in the ordinary course ofdefending against alleged construction defect claims covered bythe Company's warranty. As such, the Company does not plan toreport further on this case in future periodic reports."

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. is a geographically diversified homebuilderwith active operations in 13 states within three geographicregions in the United States: the West, East and Southeast.

CANADA: Suit Says 15% Tax on Foreign Homebuyers Unconstitutional----------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Press reports that a 15-per-cent tax on foreignhomebuyers in Metro Vancouver is unconstitutional and unfairlydiscriminates against people from Asia, a proposed class-actionlawsuit against the British Columbia government argues.

An amended document filed in B.C. Supreme Court argues theso-called foreign-buyers' tax is unconstitutional because itviolates equality rights by making an "arbitrary" distinctionbetween those who are citizens and permanent residents of Canadaand those who are not.

"The disadvantage perpetuates prejudice and stereotyping on thebasis of national origin," the 26-page lawsuit says.

"The foreign nationals' property tax is disproportionately felt byperson whose national origin is from an Asian country, a class ofpersons that have historically suffered discrimination in BritishColumbia."

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in September, says the taxunfairly assumes foreign nationals are wealthier than Canadians,and argues it violates dozens of international treatiesguaranteeing equal treatment to non-Canadian citizens andpermanent residents.

The B.C. government introduced the foreign-buyers' tax with littlewarning last summer in an effort to quell Metro Vancouver'soverheated real-estate market, which saw July prices for detachedhomes soar 38 per cent over a single year.

The law was passed on July 28 and came into effect five dayslater, sparking a frenzy to complete property transfers before thetax kicked in on Aug. 2. The move also prompted the province'sLand Title and Survey Authority to extend its hours and itsavailability over the long weekend.

A spokesman from the province's Finance Ministry confirmed in anemail on March 6 that the government had received the amendednotice of claim and would file a response in due course.

"As this case is currently before the court, it would beinappropriate to comment on the specific matters that have beenraised," Jamie Edwardson said.

The representative plaintiff in the proposed class action is JingLi, a Chinese national who learned she would have to pay anadditional $83,850 on a $587,895 home in Langley that she agreedto purchase days before the government announced the new tax.

Li moved to Canada in 2013 to complete a Master's degree in publicadministration at the University of Saskatchewan. She later movedto Burnaby before putting an offer on the Langley home.

Eight days before the law was announced Li paid a non-refundabledeposit of $55,990, which she would have had to forfeit had shebeen unable to come up with the extra money for the tax.

"On Nov. 18, 2016, Ms. Li completed her purchase and did in factpay $83,850 in foreign nationals' property tax," the lawsuit says."Had Ms. Li had a Canadian passport or permanent resident status,she would not have had to pay this additional amount."

The court document describes the disadvantage the tax places onnon-Canadians and non-permanent residents as arbitrary because itassumes foreign nationals are richer and better able to outbiddomestic homebuyers.

"Nationality and citizenship are not related to wealth," thelawsuit says.

"The foreign nationals' property tax is over inclusive becausemany persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanentresidents have no more wealth than Canadian citizens or permanentresidents."

Earlier this year, Premier Christy Clark announced the governmentwould tweak the law to provide relief to people who are invited towork in B.C. and who contribute to the province.

A spokesman with the B.C.'s Finance Ministry said in an email thatwork is underway on that policy and more details will be availableonce the regulations are announced.

CANADA: Gov't Discussions on Day Scholar Class Action Step Up-------------------------------------------------------------NetNewsLedger reports that the Representative Plaintiffs in theDay Scholars Class Action anticipate a busy few months ahead asdiscussions with Canada's Ministerial Special Representative,Tom Isaac move into high gear. Following Mr. Isaac's appointmentby the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, Minister for IndigenousAffairs, the two sides have held preliminary meetings to helpMr. Isaac understand the depth of the impact of attendance atResidential Schools by the Day Scholars. Meeting dates throughthe next several months have now been scheduled in attempt to movethis matter forward.

Launched in 2012 by the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc and shishalh IndianBands, who were joined by the Grand Council of the Crees (EeyouIstchee), the Day Scholars Class Action lawsuit seekscompensation on behalf of all Aboriginal Canadians who attended anIndian Residential School, but who did not sleep there. The casealso seeks declarations regarding Canada's role in the failure toprotect Aboriginal language and culture, and looks forcompensation for the children of survivors, and the bands to whichsurvivors belong.

The Plaintiffs remain committed to a fair outcome for allsurvivors, their children and their bands, and will work hard toensure that the voices of all those who attended the IndianResidential Schools, but who were not compensated under the IndianResidential Schools Settlement, are heard. At this time, thereare no steps that class members need to take; anyone who fits thedefinition of a Day Scholar is automatically included in thelawsuit. Prior to any proposed settlement, the RepresentativePlaintiffs will be notifying the class of the terms. In addition,no settlement can be reached without Court approval. As moreinformation becomes available, it will be shared with Aboriginalpeople across Canada.

"(a) all individuals with Wisconsin addresses (b) to whom Capital Management Services, LP sent a letter offering a settlement (c) which letter referred to tax consequences or 1099C filing, (d) where the letter was sent on or after one year prior to the date this complaint was filed and on or before 21 days after the date this complaint was filed".

Excluded from the Class are Capital Management Services, L.P. andall officers, members, partners, managers, directors, andemployees of Capital Management Services, L.P. and theirrespective immediate families, and legal counsel for all partiesto this action and all members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiff further asks that Stern Thomasson LLP and the LawOffice of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointedcounsel for the class.

The complaint says Defendant has been attempting to collect analleged credit card debt from plaintiff which was incurred, if atall, for personal, family or household purposes. On October 5,2016, Capital Management Services, LP, acting on behalf ofDiscover Bank sent plaintiff a letter seeking to collect thealleged debt.

1. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to serve the notice of lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, with enclosed consent to join, to all current and former hourly employees of Cardin Drive-In for a three year period beginning on the date the motion for the approval of the Notice was filed or for the period beginning on January 6, 2017;

2. Notice will be mailed to all current and former hourly employees at their last known address as provided on a list to be provided by Defendants to Plaintiffs' counsel within 20 days of the entry of this Order;

3. Plaintiffs' request for the Notice to be posted at the workplace or provided with paychecks is denied at this time;

4. All Consents to Join will be deemed "filed" on the date they are received by Plaintiffs' counsel;

5. The opt-in period will run for 60 days from the time the Notice is mailed;

6. The Statute of Limitations will not be tolled during this time; and

7. Defendants retain all defenses, including all objections to a three-year statute of limitations period and the right to seek decertification at the close of discovery.

Caregivers, Inc. is a privately held home care staffing companyproviding lifestyle support such as morning care and bathing,light housekeeping, shopping, errands, meal preparation and dietmonitoring, medical appointments, assistance with medications andother services for the aged, infirm, disabled and others needingassistance. Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as caregivers.

Caring from the Heart, LLC is a Michigan limited liability companyowned entirely by Fithian and operating out of her home, which islocated at 5001 Nichols Rd, Swartz Creek, County of Genesee,Michigan, 48473 where Plaintiff worked as home care workers.

On January 4, 2017, Castlight entered into a merger with Jiff,Inc. with the latter surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary ofCastlight. Jiff shareholders and option holders have the right toreceive up to 4,000,000 shares of Castlight Class B common stockor options with rights to Castlight Class B common stock,respectively, upon the achievement by the Jiff business of certainmilestones in 2017. Specifically, former Jiff share and optionholders will receive an aggregate of 1,000,000 shares of CastlightClass B common stock or Castlight options if the Jiff businessachieves at least $25 million in revenue in 2017.

Plaintiff, a shareholder of Castlight, alleges the merger dilutesCastlight's current shareholders.

Castlight provides a set of applications and services that enablesemployers to deliver cost-effective benefits, medicalprofessionals, and health plans. It offers dashboards, reports,and analytics to pinpoint opportunities that eliminate wastefulhealthcare spending and poor-quality outcomes.

On March 2, 2017, law enforcement officials executing a searchwarrant searched the Caterpillar's facilities in Peoria, Illinois.The Peoria Journal Star narrated that some of the officialswearing Internal Revenue Service logo jackets were seen enteringthe company's headquarters. Following this news, Caterpillarstock has dropped as much as 4.05 per share, or 4.11%, duringintraday trading on March 2, 2017.If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, orpurchased shares of Caterpillar, you can assist this investigationby visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cat. You can alsocontact Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, YaelHurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-697-6484.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigationboutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit oflitigation claims on behalf of its clients. In addition torepresenting institutions and other investor plaintiffs in classaction security litigation, the firm's expertise includes generalcorporate and commercial litigation, as well as securitiesarbitration.

CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set---------------------------------------------------------Alyssa Paldo, writing for CentralIllinoisProud, reports thatanother lawsuit against Caterpillar, just days after federalinvestigators raid 3 local facilities.

Glancy, Prongay & Murray, a law firm out of Los Angeles, isannouncing this class action lawsuit on March 6 on behalf ofinvestors who purchased Caterpillar stock.

Investors who suffered losses on their Caterpillar investments arebeing asked to contact the firm to file a lead plaintiff motion.The firm says this applies to investors who bought stock betweenFebruary 2013 and March 2017. Investors who purchased the stockduring the given period have until May 2nd to file the motion.

The suit mentions that on the day of the federal raid, shares fellby over 4.5% or over $4.50 per share.

The lawsuit alleges that Caterpillar made false and misleadingstatements or failed to disclose that Caterpillar unlawfully usedforeign subsidiaries to avoid paying billions of dollars in UStaxes. It goes on to say that discovery of such conduct wouldsubject Caterpillar to heightened regulatory scrutiny andpotential criminal sanctions and as a result, Caterpillar's publicstatements were materially false and misleading.

This class action lawsuit comes after one of Caterpillarshareholders announces he's also taking the company to court.Jacob Newman is suing Caterpillar and 3 top executives.

He also claims the company made false and misleading statementsand engaged in unlawful acts. It's all in relation to CSARL, aparts subsidiary in Switzerland. Mr. Newman claims this hascaused him "significant losses."

Centene provides health plans in over 20 states through Medicaid,Medicare and the Health Insurance Marketplace. On March 24, 2016,it acquired Health Net, Inc. for approximately $6 billion,including the assumption of its outstanding debt. Companyincorrectly accounted for Health Net's underperforming healthplans, including by understating certain reserves to account forlosses in California, Arizona and Oregon. This resulted in theprecipitous decline in the market value of the Company'ssecurities. Sanchez purchased Centene shares and lostsubstantially.

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces Class Action Over Receipt Policy----------------------------------------------------------John O'Brien and Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reportthat a well-known restaurant chain has been accused of puttingcustomers' private information at risk by a chiropractor who oncepleaded guilty to defrauding the government and has recently useda Florida federal court to file several class action lawsuits overreceipts and faxes.

Dr. David Muransky, of Broward County, FL, is working on hissecond individual class action lawsuit while a settlement in thefirst that would pay him $10,000 and his lawyers $2.1 million isfought by fellow class members.

Also, Aventura Chiropractic Care Center filed four class actionsof its own over faxes it received while Dr. Muransky was listed onbusiness records as the company's president.

Most recently, Dr. Muransky apparently opened a new practice inCooper City, FL, then filed a class action lawsuit against theCheesecake Factory in U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida on Jan. 30, claiming it has violated a federallaw with its receipt policy.

The complaint came after Dr. Muransky allegedly received a receipton Jan. 22 that contained too much of his credit card information.The complaint specifically states that the receipts from theCheesecake Factory contain the first six digits of their cards andthe last four digits. The plaintiff argues that this putscustomers at risk for identity theft.

A spokesperson for the restaurant said it is planning to exhibit astrong defense.

"We are aware of the complaint filed by Mr. Muransky. We intendto vigorously defend against this complaint but are not able tocomment specifically regarding this matter due to the pendinglitigation," Alethea Rowe, senior director, public relations forthe Cheesecake Factory Inc. told Legal Newsline in a writtenstatement.

Dr. Muransky is represented by Keogh Law in Chicago, Brett Luskinof Aventura, FL, and Scott D. Owens of Hollywood, FL.

They are the same attorneys who are representing Dr. Muransky in aclass action lawsuit against Godiva Chocolates that makes similarreceipt allegations. It was filed in April 2015.

The $6.3 million proposed settlement in the case has drawnobjections, though, after it was approved in September by JudgeWilliam Dimitrouleas.

Two such class members have taken their fight against thesettlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Class member Eric Alan Isaacson, a class action plaintiffs lawyer,objects to the $10,000 incentive payment proposed toDr. Muransky for his role as lead plaintiff. He noted that hisclass action was filed within a week of receiving his receipt froma Godiva store in Aventura.

He also says Dr. Muransky is not an adequate class representativebecause of a previous fraud conviction. Dr. Muransky was accusedof charging Medicaid for spinal manipulations he never performed,though the amount in question was a relatively small sum -- $245.

"I mean the whole thing was a joke," Dr. Muransky said in adeposition for another case, filed by Aventura Chiropractic Care."The other offices were changing dates and doing wrong things.

The FBI investigation into Dr. Muransky's billing practices beganin 1984. He pleaded guilty in 1989 and was sentenced to threeyears probation and restricted from the Medicare and Medicaidsystems for five years.

Aventura Chiropractic Care Center has filed four class actionsunder the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging faxes itreceived do not include an opt-out clause required by the law.

Aventura used different lawyers for those claims -- Anderson +Wanca of Rolling Meadows, IL, is listed on all four, and CohenMilstein's Palm Beach Gardens, FL, is listed on one, as isMracheck Fitzgerald of West Palm Beach, FL.

Addison & Howard, of Tampa, FL, also represented Aventura on oneof its cases.

As for Dr. Muransky's Godiva case, Mr. Isaacson said he received anotice that he would be eligible to receive $235 from the Godivasettlement and believes Dr. Muransky's attorneys settled the casefor a fraction of what they were seeking to avoid the fallout fromthe U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 Spokeo decision, which requires aplaintiff to show concrete and particularized harm.

Fellow objector James Price took issue with the amountDr. Muransky's attorneys stand to make in a class action in whicha motion for class certification was never submitted.

"A lawyer who recovers a common fund for a class is justlyentitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses," Mr. Price'sbrief to the 11th Circuit, filed Feb. 22, says.

"Here, however, the substantial size of the award vastly over-compensates Class Counsel, especially considering the little workthey performed, the abbreviated time-span of the litigation, andthe minor, if any, risks they took."

Mr. Price says Dr. Muransky's attorneys filed only threesubstantive documents over the short life of the case -- thecomplaint, an amended complaint and a response to a motion todismiss. He says they only attained a "mediocre result" for classmembers.

Dr. Muransky's lawyers will soon file response briefs with the11th Circuit. They have argued in the district court that theobjectors should have to pay a large bond while the appeal isheard.

Instead, the court turned down the $115,934 figure requested. Theobjectors were ordered to pay only a $2,500 bond.

"Based on the allegations in the complaint, this seems like afairly typical FACTA claim," Aaron Blumenthal --ab@classlawgroup.com -- of Girard Gibbs told Legal Newsline. "Theparticular legislation that they are suing under was designed toensure that all businesses are complying with the law andtruncating credit card numbers so that the full credit cardnumbers are not appearing on receipts."

Mr. Blumenthal explained that FACTA had been enacted to ensurethat vendors were truncating credit card numbers.

"There was a concern at the time that fraudsters were goingdumpster diving at restaurants to find old receipts and if all thecredit card numbers were appearing on the receipts that made itquite easy for fraudsters, so that is why the litigation wasenacted," he said.

Defendants operate a catering service located at 8950 GlenoaksBlvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352 where Plaintiffs worked. They claim tohave worked through rest periods, denied pay stubs and wereillegally terminated for protesting the abovementioned.

CHEVRON CORP: Site Managers Class Certified in "McQueen" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Jeffrey S. White grants the Plaintiffs' motion toconditionally certify the action entitled CHRISTOPHER McQUEEN,JAMES O'NEAL, and DONNIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves andother similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.CHEVRON CORPORATION, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50,inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-02089-JSW (N.D. Cal.), as a collectiveaction under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to authorizedistribution of judicial notice.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a collective action for theirclaim under the FLSA on behalf of well site/drill site managers,who were allegedly denied proper compensation as required byfederal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs seek certification ofall persons, who have worked for Defendants Chevron Corporationand Chevron U.S.A., Inc. as Site Managers, who were classified asindependent contractors or consultants and were paid a day rate atany time within three years of the filing of this action throughthe trial.

Judge White also requires the parties to meet and confer regardingthe content and the timing of the proposed judicial notice. TheCourt orders that by no later than March 17, 2017, the partieswill submit a mutually-agreed upon notice and schedule.

Chicago Bridge provides a range of services, including conceptualdesign, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication,modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, programmanagement and environmental services, to customers in the energyinfrastructure market throughout the world. Currently, it is acontractor in the construction and commissioning of two nuclearpower plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina. Theprojects' cost overruns and project delays impact the company'spreviously reported and future financial performance, thusresulting in the Company's stock price decline, the Complaintalleges. Plaintiff invested in its securities and lostsubstantially.

CHICAGO BRIDGE: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff-----------------------------------------------------------------Goldberg Law PC on March 8 announced the filing of a class actionlawsuit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("Chicago Iron"or the "Company") (NYSE: CBI). Investors who purchased orotherwise acquired Chicago Iron shares between October 29, 2013,and December 10, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"), areencouraged to contact the firm in advance of the May 2, 2017 leadplaintiff deadline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chicago Iron shares andwould like more information regarding the class action lawsuit, weencourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, ofGoldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100, Los Angeles,CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost toyou. You can also reach us through the firm's website athttp://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Prescience Point claimed that Chicago Iron had illicitly accountedfor its goodwill during 2013 with the intention of hiding lossesrelated to problems with the Company's Nuclear Projects.

When this information was revealed to investors, the value ofChicago Iron fell, causing investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights, pleaseimmediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit ourwebsite at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world andspecializes in securities class actions and shareholder rightslitigation.

Defendant provides support and training services to adultindividuals with disabilities in Prince George's County andMontgomery County. It also provides consumers with housing.

Ms. Craighead supervised a residence at 11526 Charlton Drive,Silver Spring, MD 20902, ensuring that the residents took theirmedication, that the residence was stocked with food, properlyfurnished and was safe.

"all drivers/manual laborers employed by clay road furniture LLC, and furniture 4 everyone LLC within the past three years who were not paid time and a half for overtime hours worked."

The Drivers and Manual Laborers are any and all individuals whochecked trucks, picked up furniture from the warehouse, unloadedand reloaded trucks, and assembled items in the show rooms forDefendants' and assembled furniture items in the homes andbusinesses of Defendant's customers.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to Order the following:

1. within 14 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall disclose to Plaintiff's counsel the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of all current and former Putative Class Members employed within the last three years from the date the Complaint was filed. This information shall be provided in a usable electronic format.

2. Plaintiff's counsel shall only use the phone numbers to confirm the Notice and Consent Forms were received by the Putative Class Members.

3. Plaintiff is authorized to mail and e-mail Notice and a reminder Notice after the expiration of 30 days from the original mailing date.

CLICKATELL INC: Erdely Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-Out--------------------------------------------------------David Erdely, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff, v. Clickatell, Inc., a Delaware corporationDefendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01104, (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2017),seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiringDefendant to cease all text messaging activity until it fixes itsbroken opt-out system and to honor opt-out requests, reasonableattorneys' fees and costs and such further and other relief theCourt deems reasonable and just under the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act.

Clickatell is a mobile messaging company that purports to helpbusinesses engage with their customers via SMS or text messagingservices. It has created a platform, which is a fully scalablecommunication enabler that allows businesses to SMS-enable anyapplication, website or system utilizing an automatic telephonedialling system. Plaintiff expressly "opted-out" or requested notto receive text messages by responding "STOP" or with similarcommands.

* * *

Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reportsthat the plaintiff alleges that in November 2016, he suffereddamages from receiving several unwanted text messages from thedefendant soliciting him to purchase phone minutes to make callsto Cuba. The plaintiff holds Clickatell Inc. responsible becausethe defendant allegedly kept on sending unsolicited text messagesto the plaintiff despite opting out of the service.

CLIFFS NATURAL: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Remains Pending----------------------------------------------------------Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiff'sappeal in the ERISA Litigation remains pending in the SixthCircuit Court of Appeals.

On May 14, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Ohio captioned Paul Saumer,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. et al., No. 1:15-CV-00954. Thisaction was purportedly brought on behalf of the Northshore andSilver Bay Power Company Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") andcertain participants and beneficiaries of the Plan during theclass period, defined in the complaint as April 2, 2012 to thepresent, against Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., its investmentcommittee, Northshore, the Employee Benefits AdministrationDepartment of Northshore, and certain current and former officers.Plaintiff amended the complaint to name as defendants additionalcurrent and former employees who served on the investmentcommittee.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their duties to theplaintiffs and the Plan in violation of ERISA fiduciary rules by,among other things, continuing to offer and hold Cliffs NaturalResources Inc. stock as a Plan investment option during the classperiod. The relief sought includes a request for a judgmentordering the defendants to make good to the Plan all losses to thePlan resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Thelawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers.

On April 1, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismissthe lawsuit. Plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently pendingin the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a mining and natural resourcescompany.

CLIFFS NATURAL: Exchange Offer Litigation Dismissed---------------------------------------------------Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court hasgranted the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange OfferLitigation.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2016, a putative class action wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NewYork captioned Waxman et al. v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., No.1:16-cv-01899. Generally, the lawsuit alleges that the exchangeoffers for certain of our existing senior notes announced onJanuary 27, 2016 violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the"TIA") and breached the indentures governing the senior notessubject to the exchange offers because the exchange offers wereoffered only to certain noteholders that were qualifiedinstitutional buyers ("QIBs") and not to non-QIBs."

"The suit seeks class certification with respect to non-QIBnoteholders of the 5.90% Senior Notes due 2020 and the 6.25%Senior Notes due 2040 (collectively, the "Class Notes"), whichQIBs were permitted to exchange for newly-issued 1.5 Lien Notes.Plaintiffs allege that the exchange offers had the effect ofsubordinating their Class Notes to those of the QIBs who electedto exchange their notes and also impaired the Plaintiffs' rightsto receive payment of the principal and interest under the ClassNotes and to institute suit to compel such payment. In addition toalleged violation of the TIA and breach of contract, Plaintiffsseek unspecified damages for breach of the implied covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, and also seekdeclaratory judgment that the exchange offers are null and void.

"On May 16, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, whichwas granted on December 6, 2016."

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a mining and natural resourcescompany.

"a. all persons residing in the United States, who, within the one (1) year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received collection correspondence from Defendant that failed to disclose the original creditor"; and

"b. all persons residing in the United States, who, within the one (1) year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received collection correspondence from Defendant that stated the creditor was "YOUR CREDITORS"."

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment ofPlaintiff as Class Representatives, and for appointment ofPlaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

Defendant Comenity is an Ohio-based corporation which managescredit programs for various retailers in the U.S. Comenityroutinely contacts alleged debtors through telephone calls withautomatic telephone dialing equipment. When unable to reach thealleged debtors' registered telephone number, it resorts tolocating new numbers on its own through unreliable skip tracingmethods or through number trapping numbers that usually lacksexpress consent to call.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Backer Law Suit Seeks Certification of Class--------------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit captioned THE BACKER LAW FIRM, LLC, on behalf ofitself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCOWHOLESALE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

"all persons or entities appearing in the List of Class Members to whom Defendant sent one or more facsimiles promoting its products, services, or memberships between April 2, 2011 and April 2, 2015.

Excluded from the class are ABC Business Forms, Inc., Defendant and its officers, directors, and employees, Defendant's counsel, any persons who previously have settled TCPA claims with Defendant, the Court and Court personnel, and counsel for the Plaintiff.

"all current and former hourly Assistant Managers who have worked at the 530 W. Sunset Drive Waukesha, Wisconsin, 10716 W. Oklahoma Avenue, West Allis, Wisconsin, and/or 8538 W. Brown Deer Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin location(s) of Cousins Submarines, Inc. d/b/a Cousins Subs location at any time since [3 years prior to the date of this notice being sent] and who were paid on an hourly basis".

The court also:

1. approved the notice of right to join lawsuit form, conditioned upon the plaintiff making the modifications described in the order;

2. appointed the firm of Hawks, Quindel, S.C. as collective action counsel; and

3. directed the Defendant, within 10 days of the date of the order, to identify and produce to Plaintiff's counsel the first name, last name, last-known street address, city, state, zip code, phone number, and dates of employment, of all persons who were employed at the Sunset Drive, Oklahoma Avenue, and/or Northridge restaurants at any time since August 5, 2013.

CSX INTERMODAL: Seeks Dismissal of Truck Drivers' Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that transportation giantCSX asked a California federal judge on March 7 to toss a putativeclass action alleging its truck drivers have been misclassified asindependent contractors, arguing at a hearing that the complaintsabout breaks, wages and reimbursements are preempted by theFederal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and federaltruth-in-leasing regulations.

The truck drivers allege the company has used their status asindependent contractors to violate California labor statutes bynot providing state-mandated meal and rest breaks, not payingminimum wage and failing to compensate drivers.

Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a planof merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for$66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without theproper disclosure of the details of such transaction for theshareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it.

Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatmentsystems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and othermedical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimallyinvasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourcedmedical devices for precision surgical applications such as facialplastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throatprocedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a planof merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for$66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without theproper disclosure of the details of such transaction for theshareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it. Officersand directors allegedly stood to receive large sums of cash fortheir shares, stock options, restricted stock units andperformance stock units.

Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatmentsystems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and othermedical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimallyinvasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourcedmedical devices for precision surgical applications such as facialplastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throatprocedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

"ALL MANUAL LABORERS AND SCANNER OPERATORS EMPLOYED BY THE DOCUMENT GROUP WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS."

Eugene Vaughn filed the lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid overtimewages owed to current and former Manual Laborers and ScannerOperators employed by the Defendant during the past three years.He alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and all otherManual Laborers and Scanner Operators as exempt from the overtimerequirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In order to facilitate the purposes of the FLSA's collectiveaction provisions, the Court should authorize a Court-approvednotice to be issued by the Plaintiff to potential plaintiffs, Mr.Vaughn asserts. He explains that such a notice will allow thoseemployees, whose rights are eroding each day, to be informed ofthe action and their right to join.

DOLE FOOD: Court Approves Merger-Related Class Action Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Remsen Kinne, Esq., and Eryn F. Correa, Esq., of K&L Gates, in anarticle for The National Law Review, report that in In re DoleFood Company, Inc., Stockholders Litigation, the Court of Chancerygranted a motion for leave to modify a settlement agreement in amerger-related class action suit to distribute settlement proceedsthrough DTC to Dole Food Company, Inc. ("Dole") commonstockholders of record. The Court held that the originalstipulation providing for settlement proceeds to be distributed toboth record holders and beneficial holders through a traditionalnotices and claims forms process proved to be too costly andburdensome in practice, which justified modifying the allocationprocedure.

In re Dole Food Company, Inc. arose out of a going-privatetransaction Dole completed through a single-step merger onNovember 1, 2013. The merger proceeds were distributed to thestockholders of record, including Cede & Co., the nominee of theDepository Trust Company ("DTC"). Shortly following the merger, aclass of Dole common stockholders sued Dole fiduciaries in a casethat settled for consideration of $2.74 per share plus interest.

The parties to the class action entered into a Stipulation andAgreement of Settlement, under which all record holders andbeneficial owners of common stock of Dole between June 11, 2013and November 1, 2013, the day of the closing of the merger, wereto receive a payment of $2.74 per share plus interest. Afterexcluding the defendants, the class of stockholders entitled tothis consideration held in the aggregate a total of 36,793,758outstanding shares of Dole common stock. This settlement wasapproved by the court and the aggregate settlement proceeds amountwas paid by defendants to the Settlement Administrator.

A.B. Data served as Settlement Administrator and mailed noticesand claims forms to potential class members, brokers and othernominees. Through this process, A.B. Data received faciallyeligible claims from holders whose completed claims formsindicated record and beneficial ownership of a total of 49,164,415shares. This exceeded the total number of shares entitled toreceive settlement proceeds by 12,370,654 shares. A.B. Data andclass counsel's efforts to solve the discrepancy with DTC revealedthat due to short-selling and a high volume of trade in the threedays before the merger closed, it would be nearly impossible todetermine who owned the shares as of closing in a practical orcost-effective manner. Class counsel therefore moved for leave tomodify the allocation procedure of settlement proceeds so thatinstead of the claims process, the proceeds would be distributedthrough DTC, using the same payment mechanism that was used todistribute the merger consideration.

The Court of Chancery reviewed the motion for leave to modify thesettlement as a request to modify the plan of allocation for goodcause shown. The Court of Chancery explained that a plan ofallocation must be reasonable but, according to Delaware law, aplan does not have to compensate all potential claimants equallyin order to be reasonable. The Court pointed out that although theoriginal plan sought to allocate consideration among all holdersof Dole common stock, this allocation would not have achieved prorata distribution among all class members but rather, only thoseclass members that made claims. The Court thus determined thatallocating the settlement proceeds among only the record holdersin the same way the merger proceeds were allocated would be thebetter solution because it was fair, cost-efficient and consistentwith Delaware law.

In its reasoning the Court indicated that distributing settlementproceeds only to record holders would be consistent with Delawarelaw in that Delaware corporations generally are required only torecognize record stockholders and are not required to determinebeneficial stockholders, even in settlements. The Court alsoreferred to the property rights in Dole shares held by the recordholders at the time of the merger as a basis for the claimsunderlying the class action settlement agreement. The Courtconcluded that consideration paid in settlement of such classaction claims could be viewed as additional merger considerationthat the class should have received pursuant to the merger.

All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602) originated or brokered by Emery Federal Credit Union for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title, LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.

The Emery Class are victims of the same illegal kickback scheme,suffered the same injuries, have identical claims against Emeryand are entitled to the same statutory measure of damages, thePlaintiffs contend.

Class 1: All consumers in the United States of America, beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, (i) who have received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed information contained in a credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis; and (iv) whose credit files were not corrected after Experian received those disputes.

Illinois Subclass 1: All consumers in Illinois, beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, (i) who have received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed information contained in a credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis; and (iv) whose credit files were not corrected after Experian received those disputes.

Class 2: All consumers in the United States of America, beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, (i) who have received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed information contained in a credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis; (iv) whose credit files were not corrected within 3 business days after Experian received those disputes; and (v) whose information and notice of dispute were not forwarded to the furnishers of the disputed information.

Illinois Subclass 2: All consumers in Illinois, beginning two years prior to filing this Complaint and continuing through the resolution of this action, (i) who have received an Order of Discharge, discharging certain debts in a bankruptcy case; (ii) whose credit file maintained by Experian does not reflect that certain debts have been discharged by an Order of Discharge entered in a bankruptcy case; (iii) who have disputed information contained in a credit file maintained by Experian by mail, internet, or phone, on that basis; (iv) whose credit files were not corrected within 3 business days after Experian received those disputes; and (v) whose information and notice of dispute were not forwarded to the furnishers of the disputed information.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as ClassRepresentatives, and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

FEMALE HEALTH: "Glotzer" Class Suit Remains Pending---------------------------------------------------The Female Health Company continues to defend the class actionlawsuit by Martin Glotzer, the Company said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 9, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,2016.

On or about October 21, 2016, a shareholder, Martin Glotzer, fileda purported derivative and class action complaint on behalf ofhimself and the public shareholders of the Company in the CircuitCourt of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v. The FemaleHealth Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815. An amendedcomplaint names as defendants the Company, the members of theCompany's board of directors prior to the closing of the APPMerger and the members of the Company's board of directors afterthe closing of the APP Merger. The amended complaint alleges,among other things, that the Company's directors breached theirfiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection withthe APP Merger. Based on these allegations, the complaint seeksequitable relief, including rescinding the APP Merger andenjoining the Company's board of directors from taking action infurtherance of the APP Merger, damages on behalf of the Companyand costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys'fees.

On December 9, 2016, the defendants filed to remove the action toUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, and on December 16, 2016, the action was remanded backto the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Companybelieves that this action is without merit and is vigorouslydefending itself.

The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical devicecompany, with an initial focus on the development andcommercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's healthand oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approvalpathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway. The Company also has aConsumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global PublicHealth Sector Division. The Company does business as both "VeruHealthcare" and "The Female Health Company."

On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy todiversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a singleproduct company, the Company completed a merger transaction (theAPP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. APP is acompany focused on the development and commercialization ofpharmaceutical and consumer health products for men's and women'shealth and oncology.

FEMALE HEALTH: "Schartz" Class Suit Remains Pending---------------------------------------------------The Female Health Company continues to defend the derivative andclass action complaint by Brian C. Schartz in state court, theCompany said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the quarterly periodended December 31, 2016.

On or about November 4, 2016, a shareholder, Brian C. Schartz,filed a purported derivative and class action complaint on behalfof himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of theCompany in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captionedSchartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488. The lawsuitnames as defendants the Company, the members of the Company'sboard of directors prior to the closing of the APP Merger and themembers of the Company's board of directors after the closing ofthe APP Merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, thatthe Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties byconsummating the APP Merger in violation of the Wisconsin BusinessCorporation Law and by causing FHC to disseminate to itsshareholders press releases and SEC filings containing materiallyfalse and misleading statements. Based on these allegations, thecomplaint seeks equitable relief, including enjoining theCompany's board of directors from taking action in furtherance ofthe APP Merger, damages on behalf of FHC and costs and expenses ofthe litigation, including attorneys' fees.

On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed to remove the action toUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois, and on December 14, 2016, the action was remanded backto the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Companybelieves that this action is without merit and is vigorouslydefending itself.

The Female Health Company is a pharmaceutical and medical devicecompany, with an initial focus on the development andcommercialization of pharmaceuticals for men's and women's healthand oncology that qualify for the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration's (FDA) 505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approvalpathway as well as the 505 (b)(1) pathway. The Company also has aConsumer Health and Medical Devices Division and Global PublicHealth Sector Division. The Company does business as both "VeruHealthcare" and "The Female Health Company."

On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy todiversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a singleproduct company, the Company completed a merger transaction (theAPP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. APP is acompany focused on the development and commercialization ofpharmaceutical and consumer health products for men's and women'shealth and oncology.

FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE: Dye Seeks Preliminary Settlement Approval---------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOHN DYE, JR., Individuallyand on behalf of a class of persons v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGECOMPANY, Case No. 1:15-cv-12820 (S.D. W.Va.), asks the Court topreliminarily approve the parties' proposed settlement agreement,and to direct the parties to carry out their obligations pursuantto the Settlement Agreement.

Mr. Dye also asks the Court to adopt this proposed schedule, theCourt's calendar permitting, for completion of remaining tasks:

a. Class Notice Mailed: 14 days after preliminary approval;

b. Objection/Exclusion Date: 30 days after the mailing of class notice;

c. Final Approval Submissions: 14 days after objection/exclusion date; and

d. Final Approval Hearing: approximately 30 days after final approval submissions.

Fine Wines and Spirits of North Texas LLC (Fine Wine) is a beer,wine, and liquor retailer with its principal place of businesslocated at 11325 Seven Locks Road, Potomac, Maryland, 20854.Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs for all time worked butinstead, automatically deducted a lunch break that they did nottake. When Leach and Freeland questioned this practice, Defendantfired them for pre-textual reasons.

Firstsource Advantage is debt collection company engaged, by useof the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debtfrom the Plaintiff. Defendant used an automatic telephone diallingsystem to place its daily calls to Plaintiff seeking to collectthe alleged debt owed. Defendant did not have Caldera's priorexpress consent to receive calls using an automatic telephonedialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice on hiscellular telephone.

Mr. Ayala brought the lawsuit on behalf of former employees of theDefendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. He allegesthat he and potential opt-in plaintiffs were paid straight time,instead of time and a half for overtime work.

Demauron Davis and Access Now, Inc., individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Feb. 28, inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinoisagainst FKG Oil Company, doing business as Motomart, alleging theconvenience store violated the American Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Davis hasvisited the defendant's stores but experienced unnecessarydifficulty. Mr. Davis alleges the parking lots are inaccessible,having excessive slopes with lack of accessible signage andimpermissibly narrow aisles, which added great discomfort todisabled invitees.

The plaintiffs allege the defendant failed to remove architecturalbarriers, failed to design and construct places that are readilyaccessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities andfailed to maintain features of public accommodations that arerequired to be readily accessible to and usable by persons withdisabilities.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek declaratoryjudgment, an order certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs,costs of suit, attorney's fees and other relief the court deemsjust, equitable and appropriate.

They are represented by Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law FirmLLC in St. Louis and Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com-- and Stephanie Goldin -- sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- of CarlsonLynch Sweet, Kilpela and Carpenter LLP in Floor Pittsburgh, Pa.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois casenumber 3:17-cv-00217

FLINT, MI: May Need Two Years to Be Able to Treat Own Water-----------------------------------------------------------CNN reports that Flint has been mired in a devastating watercrisis for nearly three years, and it may be another two beforeit's resolved.

Mayor Karen Weaver wrote to EPA officials to inform them that theMichigan city will not be able to treat its own water for lead andother contaminants until 2019, citing a lengthy construction andtesting process for a new water treatment plant.

In 2014, officials implemented a cost-cutting plan to switch thecity's water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, which is19 times more corrosive, according to researchers from VirginiaTech. That caused lead to leach from pipes and into the city'sdrinking water.

'Why is the water brown?'

Soon after the switch, the water started to look, smell and tasteodd. Residents said it also looked dirty.

"The water would come in brown and my daughter was like 'Mom . . .why is the water brown?,'" Flint resident Rhonda Keslo told CNNlast year.

The EPA intervened in 2016, following studies that revealeddangerous levels of lead in the city's drinking water and a class-action lawsuit alleging that the Department of EnvironmentalQuality wasn't treating the Flint River with an anti-corrosiveagent.

The EPA enacted a Safe Drinking Water Emergency Order, whichallowed it to more closely monitor and control the state and localresponse efforts in Flint. These efforts include rerouting thewater supply, replacing corroded water pipes and distributingbottled water and filters.

The EPA's oversight requires that Ms. Weaver keeps the federalgovernment abreast of developments in its plan to restore cleandrinking water to the city. The federal agency has not yetpublicly responded to the letter.

Lead levels below federal limit

The EPA has also required that the city receive public input onits final water source and treatment plan. The current proposedlong-term water source is Lake Huron, according to Ms. Weaver'sletter. But the city will announce its final decision in April.The city will also select a backup water source for use inemergencies.

Flint currently relies on water from Detroit's Great Lakes WaterAuthority. The city's agreement with Great Lakes Water Authority,which also draws its water from Lake Huron, is set to expireduring this summer, according to documents filed with the EPA.

Since federal intervention, Flint's lead contamination hasreportedly dropped. A six-month study by the Michigan Departmentof Environmental Quality revealed in January that lead levels inFlint's water supply had fallen below the federal limit. However,many residents still rely on bottled water, and the state stillrecommends that residents use filtered water for cooking anddrinking.

Morgan & Curtis also asks the Court to take the Motion undersubmission and deferring further activity on it until after thediscovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23scheduling order.

FONTEM US: Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Held-----------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the trial courtscheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsiderationfor February 13, 2017, in the case, Fontem US, Inc. Consumer ClassAction Litig.

Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement relating tothe Divestiture, RAI tendered the defense of the now-consolidatedDiek and Whitney actions to, and sought indemnification for thoseactions from, ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations andconditions of the asset purchase agreement relating to theDivestiture, ITG agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and itsaffiliates against losses arising from the operation of the blubrand e-cigarette business.

On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amendedconsolidated complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. OnNovember 1, 2016, the trial court granted the defendants' motionto dismiss in substantial part, finding that federal law preemptedall of the plaintiffs' claims except those based on allegedviolations of California's Proposition 65 under California'sBusiness and Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq.

On November 21, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration ofthe trial court's November 1, 2016 order. The trial courtscheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsiderationfor February 13, 2017.

FORD MOTOR: June 11, 2018 Hearing Set in Powershift Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Emma Schafer, writing for Springfield News, reports thatJulie Zawila is so scared to drive her "lemon" Ford Focus that shecovers it in signs to warn other motorists.

The Springfield Lakes mum is one of more than 7000 Ford owners whohave complained about a faulty PowerShift transmission thatallegedly caused the cars to shudder and stall unexpectedly.

Ms Zawila said despite having a new clutch installed last month,her car still shudders, cannot find second gear, and has stalledthree times at lights and roundabouts.

She said problems with the "lemon car" rattled her nerves so badlyat one point that she was forced to pull over, shaking and intears.

"These vehicles need to be taken off our roads and crushed," shesaid.

"They are absolute lemons and will be a danger to everyone as longas they are on the roads."

Ford's PowerShift transmission is in 22 different models of 2011-15 Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport.

The technology is designed to drive like an automatic but has thefeatures of a manual gearbox.

About 1500 disgruntled customers are currently suing Ford,alleging cars with the technology are not of acceptable quality,as defined under Australian Consumer Law.

The final hearing of the class action lawsuit, filed by BannisterLaw, will begin on June 11, 2018.

The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchaseprice and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravateddamages.

More than 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars could be affected.

Ms Zawila is not a party to the class action but is innegotiations with her local Ford dealer and the Queensland Civiland Administrative Tribunal.

She purchased her car secondhand for $18,393 just over a year ago.

"I'm going for a full refund on the thing," she said.

A spokesman for Ford Australia said the company was working toassist customers.

"If any customer is experiencing potential problems with theirvehicle, they should contact their dealer or contact FordAustralia directly for assistance," he said.

He said potentially affected vehicles have had the warrantyextended on the clutch and transmission input shaft seals as wellas the transmission software calibration.

A Fix our Ford Focus and Fiestas!! Facebook group has over 1200members.

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day of the week.

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion and Count IV, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Gaither Technologies STC, LLC, promoting their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed classrepresentative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLCbe appointed counsel for the class.

The alleged defeat device keeps emissions levels within legalstandards when the car is being tested in lab conditions. But theplaintiffs say once those cars are back on the roads in the handsof consumers, the nitrogen oxide levels go above legal limits.

According to the plaintiffs, one study conducted for the DutchMinistry of Infrastructure showed real-world testing indicated theGeneral Motors Opel, a car very similar to the Cruze, emitsnitrogen oxide levels higher than in lab tests and higher thanEuropean standards.

The plaintiffs also allege they have tested the Chevrolet Cruze byusing a "Portable Emissions Measurement System" that revealed theCruze was non-compliant with U.S. emissions standards duringhighway driving (especially speeds over 70 miles per hour), stop-and-go driving, temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit andtemperatures over 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

The lawsuit alleges if GM is forced to alter the 2014 ChevroletCruze cars to make them compliant with U.S. emissions standards,the cars will no longer perform as they did when purchased and asadvertised and the value will be diminished. In addition, theplaintiffs argue they will be forced to pay more for fuel.

General Motors argues there is nothing wrong with the emissionssystems in the Cruze diesel cars and the vehicles comply with allregulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and theCalifornia Air Resources Board. In addition, the automaker arguesthe plaintiffs have not alleged any facts which show that GM hadexclusive knowledge of the defeat device or actively concealedsuch a device.

However, the judge said the plaintiffs do have grounds to allegeGM installed a defeat device on the Cruise and the only plausiblepurpose for a device is the give the appearance of low emissions.

The judge ruled that if GM were not attempting to deceiveconsumers regarding the level of emissions produced by the Cruze,the alleged "defeat device" would not exist, which is enough toallege active concealment.

Further, if a defeat device exists, GM had exclusive knowledge ofthe device which was clearly meant to be secret and the automakercannot reasonably argue that owners could have discovered thedevice's existence prior to purchasing the car.

The judge dismissed breach of contract claims without prejudice, aclear win for GM. But false advertising and fraud claims were notdismissed and the lawsuit will carry to the discovery phase.

GEORGIA: Implements Final Changes to Child Welfare System---------------------------------------------------------Open Minds reports that the Georgia Division of Family andChildren Services (DFCS) began implementing the final changes tothe state's child welfare system to exit the 2005 Kenny A. ConsentDecree. The Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) and theplaintiffs, Children's Rights, filed a modified Consent Decree andExit Plan on November 8, 2016, and it was approved on December 5,2016 by Thomas W. Thrash, United States District Judge. The KennyA. class-action lawsuit was filed in 2002 on behalf of children infoster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties (the Atlanta metro area.

Mr. Guthrie further asks that briefing on the Motion be stayedpending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth andnumerosity. He asserts that he is filing the Motion now to avoidan individual "buy-off" settlement payment to him only, whichcould potentially wipe out the Class' claims.

GROVETOWN, GA: Settles Class Action Over Water Bill Overcharges---------------------------------------------------------------Ashley Campbell, writing for WJBF-TV, reports that a class actionlawsuit against the city of Grovetown has been settled and nowfolks are finding out how to get paid.

The lawsuit is regarding residents being overcharged for water,allegedly at the hands of former City Clerk Vicki Capetillo.

Before the lawsuit, Frank Wilson said he was blind to the factthat his business was paying too much for water use.

"All I knew was that it kept going up," said Mr. Wilson.

Now, Attorney Jeff Peil, who was part of the suit, says everyresident is getting a piece of the settlement pie.

"All the citizens should be receiving a postcard in the mail thathas a unique code. You use that code athttp://www.grovetownwatersettlement.comand it will tell them how much they'll be eligible for," said Mr. Peil.

Residents are getting back different amounts and Mr. Peil saysthere's a reason for that. and it's all based upon water bills.

"We said you're going to receive 32% of whatever the 2015 waterbill was at the residence where you currently reside," saidMr. Peil.

Why the 32% payout?

"It was impossible to figure out exactly how much was being overbilled. We pegged it at $1.6 million and settled for $1.5 millionand the 32% ensures that that amount of money goes back," said Mr.Peil.

While Grovetown residents may be getting back different amounts,people we spoke with say they're just glad it's all over.

"I'm glad they got it settled. Maybe things in Grovetown willsettle back down," said Mr. Wilson.

So far, no charges have been filed against Ms. Capetillo who'saccused of illegally raising water rates and stealing money fromthe city of Grovetown.

Hermes Landscaping, Inc. is a Kansas company with itsadministrative office located at 13030 W. 87th Street Parkway,Lenexa, Kansas. It is a full-service landscaping and irrigationprovider which serves the greater Kansas City area. It does bothcommercial and residential landscape contracting work in Kansasand Missouri where Plaintiff, a Mexican with a H-2B work permit,worked as a groundskeeper and landscaper.

Defendants failed to disclose that the Company lacked effectiveinternal control over financial reporting and that the Company'sfinancial statements were materially false and misleading at allrelevant times. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.47 pershare or over 2.47% to close at $18.50 per share on March 3, 2017,damaging investors, including the Plaintiff.

HMS HOLDINGS: May 2 Deadline for Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff---------------------------------------------------------------Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm, onMarch 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filedagainst HMS Holdings Corp. ("HMS or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMSY)and certain of its officers and directors for violations of thefederal securities laws. The deadline to move the court for leadplaintiff status is May 2, 2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired HMS securities betweenMay 10, 2016 and March 2, 2017 (the "Class Period") and wish tolearn more about your options, you are encouraged to contactattorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, or visitwww.blockesq.com/hms.

In November of 2016, HMS revealed that there "could be a materialnegative impact on our future revenue in future periods" inconnection with disputes over the Company's Medicare RecoveryAudit Contractor, owned by HMS, and the Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services.

On March 2, 2017, HMS announced it would be unable to timely fileits full-year 2016 financial results, revealing that the Companyhad identified a "material weakness in the Company's internalcontrols over financial reporting," resulting in a stock drop ofanother 2.5%.

The case, brought on behalf of investors who purchased orotherwise HMS securities during the Class Period, alleges that thedefendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failedto disclose that: (1) HMS lacked effective internal control overfinancial reporting; and (2) as a result, HMS's financialstatements were materially false and misleading at all relevanttimes, and that when the truth was revealed, investors suffereddamages.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevantinformation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston- based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm'slawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases onbehalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing wererecently covered by the New York Times.

The case, filed March 3, 2017, is pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of New Jersey, and is captionedDanahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al., Ca No. 3:17-cv-01494(D.N.J.). The court is located at 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden,New Jersey 08101.

HOME DEPOT: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in Chicago--------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that anIllinois man has sought to nail one of the largest homeimprovement retailers in the country with a class action lawsuit,asserting they should be made to pay for selling two-by-fours andother pieces of lumber that don't measure up to their listeddimensions.

On March 8, plaintiff Mikhail Abramov filed his complaint inChicago federal court against The Home Depot, asserting the waythe Atlanta, Ga.-based retailer sells lumber is not just an opensecret in the construction trades, but a violation of consumerfraud laws.

Mr. Abramov is represented in the lawsuit by attorneys with theMcGuire Law P.C. firm, of Chicago.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Abramov asserts he purchased a piece of"dimensional lumber" sold at Home Depot's store in Palatine storein December 2016. While the label had asserted the lumber measuredfour inches wide by four inches high and six feet long (4X4x6),Mr. Abramov said when he measured the lumber piece at home, itsactual dimensions were 3.5x3.5x6, "which was 12.5 percent shorterin height and width, and approximately 23 percent less overallmaterial than advertised and represented by (Home Depot)."

Mr. Abramov alleged the practice of shorting customers of thedimensional lumber pieces they purchase is common at Home Depot.The complaint noted, for instance, "the most commonly used 2" x 4"- 8' framing lumber actually measures 1.5" x 3.5" - 8'."

"Nowhere does Defendant state that the advertised dimensions arenot the actual dimensions of the products, that the advertiseddimensions were 'nominal' dimensions, or anything else to indicatethat the products' actual dimensions differ from those explicitlystated on the advertising and product labeling,"Mr. Abramov's complaint said.

The complaint asserts Mr. Abramov and other potential plaintiffs"would not have purchased the dimensional lumber products . . . orwould have paid materially less for them, had they known thatDefendant's representations as to the dimensions of these productswere false and misleading."

The complaint asserts Home Depot has profited from its "falsemarketing and sale" of the lumber, but does not specify how.

Mr. Abramov's complaint asks the court to allow him to expand thelawsuit to include everyone in the U.S. who purchased lumber fromHome Depot, as well as to create a special subclass of Illinoisplaintiffs who purchased lumber at Home Depot in the past threeyears.

The lawsuit asks the court to award unspecified actual andcompensatory damages, or to order Home Depot to disgorge "allfunds unjustly retained . . . as a result of its unfair anddeceptive practices." The complaint also requests attorney fees,and jury trial.

The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed in Miami-DadeCircuit Court by Icon South Beach renter Derek Schwartz, but couldend up involving more than 100 plaintiffs, according to thecomplaint.

In order to rent or purchase one of the 290 units at Icon SouthBeach, a 42-story luxury tower at 450 Alton Road, a potentialbuyer or tenant must fill out an application and seek approvalfrom the condo association, the lawsuit states. However, the Iconboard charges applicants a $250 processing fee that is $150 morethan the Florida Condominium Act allows, the lawsuit says.

"This deceptive and unfair scheme was used by Icon to line itspockets at the expense of Florida consumers," the lawsuit says."The Florida Condominium Act prohibits condominium associationsfrom charging transfer fees of more than $100 per applicant."

Schwartz is seeking unspecified damages for himself and anyone whoqualifies for the class action, as well as an injunction from thecourt to stop Icon Condominium Association "from charging suchillegal transfer fees in the future."

The lawsuit also accuses the condo association of violating thestate's law against deceptive and unfair trade practices. If thecourt authorizes the class action status, anyone who paid the $250application fee would be able to join the lawsuit.

Icon South Beach was completed in 2004 by the Related Group.According to Zillow, 16 units are currently on the market, askingbetween $678,000 and $4.5 million. Monthly rents average between$3,400 to $4,300 for a one-bedroom condo and between $5,800 to$8,900 for a two-bedroom unit.

INLAND BANCORP: Court Denies iMove Chicago's Bid to Certify Class-----------------------------------------------------------------The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois made a docket entry on February 21, 2017, in the casetitled iMove Chicago, Inc. v. Inland Bancorp, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:16-cv-10106 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held beforethe Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that:

-- in light of the parties' stipulation, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice;

-- Defendants will not make any Rule 68 offer of judgment, or otherwise tender purportedly full relief in an attempt to moot Plaintiff's ability to seek individual relief or class certification, until after the Court has ruled on the issue of class certification at a later date;

-- Defendants are not prohibited from challenging class certification on any grounds, and no party shall be deemed to have waived any claims or defenses otherwise available to it; and

Mr. Thayer brought the lawsuit on behalf of individuals civillycommitted to the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program againstthe Defendants for violations of their constitutional, statutoryand common law rights. He seeks equitable and injunctive relief,and actual or nominal damages for the constitutional, statutory,and common law claims, on behalf of these classes:

-- Injunctive Class: All residents who are civilly committed or confined pending commitment to the SPTP pursuant to the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA); and

-- Damages Class: Plaintiff and Class members who are civilly committed to the SPTP pursuant to the KSVPA who have sustained actual or nominal damages through the actions and omissions of Defendants.

Plaintiff, a New York resident, alleged that he received a privateconsumer loan from LendingClub Corporation (LendingClub) in June2015 at 29.97% interest, in excess of New York's 16% usury limit.He filed his class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situatedNew Yorkers, as well as all U.S. persons or entities who receivedloans from defendants at interest rates in excess of their state'susury limit.

The Complaint alleged that LendingClub used a "sham" bankpartnership with WebBank -- which is chartered in Utah where thereis no usury law -- to evade the usury limits of borrowers' homestates. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that LendingClubperformed traditional lending functions, including solicitationand loan underwriting, but then caused WebBank to fund the loans,only to transfer them to LendingClub two days later.

The Complaint also demanded a jury trial. Defendants, however,moved to compel arbitration and bar the class claims based on anarbitration provision and class action waiver in plaintiff's loancontracts with LendingClub and WebBank. Plaintiff could haveopted out of the arbitration provision within 30 days afteraccepting the agreement, but he did not exercise that right.

Rather, in court he argued that the arbitration provision was"unconscionable" because it sought to enforce the laws of Utah(not New York, plaintiff's state of residence), and to evade theusury protections available under New York law. Ultimately, JudgeNaomi Reice Buchwald concluded that because plaintiff was reallychallenging the choice-of-law provision for the entire contract(rather than the arbitration provision in particular), anarbitrator (not the Court) must determine the validity of thecontract and arbitrability of the dispute. The Court furtherenforced the contract's class action waiver providing that "noarbitration shall proceed on a class, representative, orcollective basis."

Bethune is important for two main reasons. First, it demonstratesthat arbitration clauses remain a powerful tool to avoid publiclitigation and potentially reduce litigation costs. Second, itillustrates the impact that the CFPB's proposed arbitration rulewill have if finalized and if it withstands legal and legislativechallenges.

Under the proposed rule, lenders will not be able to rely onborrowers' failure to exercise an arbitration opt-out provision,as defendants did in Bethune. That is because the proposed ruleprohibits lenders from using arbitration clauses to bar consumersfrom filing or participating in class actions.

The comment period on the proposed arbitration rule closed onAugust 22, 2016. If the rule is finalized, compliance will berequired within 211 days of final publication. However, it isunclear when, or even if, the CFPB will finalize the rule forvarious reasons, including resolution of CFPB v. PHH Corp. whichis pending en banc review before the D.C. Circuit. In addition,the Congressional Review Act may allow Congressional Republicansto nullify a final arbitration rule, and prevent reissuance unlessauthorized by a newly enacted law.

The Georgia Attorney General announced this month a $40 millionsettlement with online payday lender CashCall, Inc. and affiliatedparties. The Attorney General had alleged that defendants chargedGeorgians unlawfully high interest rates, and that the true lenderwas not entitled to tribal immunity from state law prohibitions onusurious lending. In another matter, the Pennsylvania AttorneyGeneral recently defeated the motion to dismiss and bankpreemption defense of online payday lender Think Finance, Inc. SeeCommonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Think Finance, Inc. (E.D.Pa.).The court held that the Attorney General sufficiently alleged thatThink Finance, Inc., and not its bank partner, was the "truelender."

Online lenders and bank partners must take care to structure theirrelationships with regard for "true lender" enforcement risk.

LIONS GATE: Remaining Defendants Answer Starz Merger Suit in Del.-----------------------------------------------------------------Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that theremaining defendants have filed answers to the verifiedconsolidated class action complaint by purported Starzstockholders.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative classaction complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders inthe Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions havebeen consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in theconsolidated action filed a verified consolidated class actioncomplaint on August 16, 2016. The complaint names as defendantsthe members of the board of directors of Starz; Dr. Malone andLeslie Malone; Robert Bennett and Deborah J. Bennett; The TraceyL. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments,LLC ("Hilltop"); Dr. Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. Italleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz boardof directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and theholders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with themerger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controllingstockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to otherStarz stockholders in connection with the merger and relatedtransactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted suchbreaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expeditedproceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to theAgreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016, Lionsgate andStarz consummated the merger, under which Lionsgate acquired Starzfor a combination of cash and common stock.

On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissingwithout prejudice the claims against former Starz directors IrvingAzoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and JeffreySagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone,Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone TrustA.

On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissingwithout prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky.

The remaining defendants filed answers to the verifiedconsolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017.Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.

On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to theAgreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("MergerAgreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, underwhich Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash andcommon stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to theconsummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected thereclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which eachexisting Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of anewly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-votingshares, subject to the terms and conditions of the MergerAgreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of StarzSeries A common stock was converted into the right to receive$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stockwas converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of ashare of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a shareof Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to theterms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.

LIONS GATE: Colorado Class Suit Remains Stayed----------------------------------------------Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that a court hasgranted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay a Colorado calssaction complaint action pending final resolution of theconsolidated Delaware action.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed bya purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the Cityand County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members ofthe board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Robert Bennett, aswell as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, amongother things, that the members of the Starz board of directorsbreached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of StarzSeries A common stock in connection with the merger and thetransactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr.Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abettedsuch breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposedmotion to stay the action pending final resolution of theconsolidated Delaware action.

On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to theAgreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("MergerAgreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, underwhich Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash andcommon stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to theconsummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected thereclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which eachexisting Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of anewly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-votingshares, subject to the terms and conditions of the MergerAgreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of StarzSeries A common stock was converted into the right to receive$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stockwas converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of ashare of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a shareof Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to theterms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.

LIONS GATE: Settlement of N.Y. Class Action Pending---------------------------------------------------Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that thesettlement of a stockholder class action in New York remainssubject to approval by the court.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed bya purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of theState of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, etal., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendantsLions Gate and the members of its board of directors. Thecomplaint alleges, among other things, that the members of theLions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed toLions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches offiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger,and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directorsfailed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxystatement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 inconnection with the proposed merger.

On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarilyenjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery. OnNovember 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation ofsettlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed astipulation withdrawing plaintiff's motion. The settlement remainssubject to approval by the court.

On December 8, 2016, upon shareholder approval, pursuant to theAgreement and Plan of Merger dated June 30, 2016 ("MergerAgreement"), Lionsgate and Starz consummated the merger, underwhich Lionsgate acquired Starz for a combination of cash andcommon stock (the "Starz Merger"). Immediately prior to theconsummation of the Starz Merger, Lionsgate effected thereclassification of its capital stock, pursuant to which eachexisting Lionsgate common share was converted into 0.5 shares of anewly issued class of Lionsgate Class A voting shares and 0.5shares of a newly issued class of Lionsgate Class B non-votingshares, subject to the terms and conditions of the MergerAgreement. Following the reclassification (a) each share of StarzSeries A common stock was converted into the right to receive$18.00 in cash and 0.6784 of a share of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares, and (b) each share of Starz Series B common stockwas converted into the right to receive $7.26 in cash, 0.6321 of ashare of Lionsgate Class B non-voting shares and 0.6321 of a shareof Lionsgate Class A voting shares, in each case, subject to theterms and conditions of the Merger Agreement.

LJ ROSS: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "White" Suit------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled HEATHER L. WHITE, individuallyand on behalf of similarly situated persons v. LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES,INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-10595-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich.), submits hermotion for class certification contemporaneously with the filingof her complaint in an effort to protect the matter continuing asa class action as defendants will frequently either make a Rule 68Offer of Judgment for more than the maximum of what a plaintiffcould obtain at trial.

Ms. White says she is, however, willing to stipulate towithdrawing without prejudice her motion for class certificationso long as the Defendant stipulates to not making any offer toher.

If such a stipulation cannot be reached with the Defendant, Ms.White asks the Court to certify two classes:

1. FDCPA Class: All persons who received a collection letter from LJ Ross Associates Inc., that was sent from February 23, 2016, to February 23, 2017, where the debt sought to be collected was discharged in bankruptcy; and

2. MOC Class: All persons who received a collection letter from LJ Ross Associates Inc., that was sent from February 23, 2011, to February 23, 2017, where the debt sought to be collected was discharged in bankruptcy.

Edgar Garcia seeks preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulationof Class Action Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff, onBehalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, and theDefendant that, if granted, would provide significant monetaryrelief for approximately 570 current and former employees of theDefendant County, according to the Motion. The Plaintiff filedthe putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of wage andhour law.

The Settlement Class defined as:

All persons employed by Defendant as a Detention Service Officer ("DSO"), Senior DSO ("SDSO") and Group Supervisor Nights ("GSN") from March 30, 2013, through the Date of Preliminary Approval ("Claims Period") who have timely submitted a completed Claim and Release Form (collectively, the "Settlement Class Members").

The Settlement provides for a maximum settlement amount of$1,275,000 to be paid by the Defendant in full satisfaction of theclaims arising from the Action.

The Motion also seeks for the appointment of Solomon E. Gresen,Esq., and Jack Risemberg, Esq., of RGLawyers, LLP, as ClassCounsel, the appointment of ILYM Group as SettlementAdministrator, and the approval of the proposed notice to thesettlement class and claim form.

Defendant is a staffing agency in Orange County, Florida, whereMungen worked as a recruiter, reviewing job postings to determinethe needs of medical employers within their area, reviewingresumes of applicants in Defendant's databases for the minimumrequirements listed on various job postings and facilitatinginterviews between employers and applicants.

Plaintiff regularly worked hours in excess of forty hours in aworkweek, worked from home regularly using a company-issued laptopand was required to stay beyond his normal schedule when the needarose due to work flow, new contract, or other event giving riseto the need to work increased hours.

Riding the wave of the Point Break remake, the Plaintiffsinitiated the putative class action lawsuit on March 29, 2016,alleging they and other would-be beach-goers have been unlawfullyexcluded from parks, beaches, and ocean access in Palos VerdesEstates. In particular, the Plaintiffs assert that IndividualDefendants' long-standing history of "localism," a "territorialpractice whereby resident surfers attempt to exclude nonresidentbeachgoers and surfers through threats, intimidation, andviolence," at Palos Verdes Estates' infamous "Lunada Bay" and CityDefendants' nonchalance about such localism violate a bevy offederal and state laws.

The Plaintiffs defines the class as:

All visiting beachgoers to Lunada Bay who do not live in Palos Verdes Estates, as well as those who have been deterred from visiting Lunada Bay because of the Bay Boys' actions, the Individual Defendants' actions, the City of PVE's actions and inaction, and Defendant Chief of Police Kepley's action and inaction, and subsequently denied during the Liability Period, and/or are currently being denied, on the basis of them living outside of the City of PVE, full and equal enjoyment of rights under the state and federal constitution, to services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or recreational opportunities at Lunada Bay. For purposes of this class, "visiting beachgoers" includes all persons who do not reside in the City of PVE, and who are not members of the Bay Boys, but want lawful, safe, and secure access to Lunada Bay to engage in recreational activities, including, but not limited to, surfers, boaters, sunbathers, fisherman, picnickers, kneeboarders, stand-up paddle boarders, boogie boarders, bodysurfers, windsurfers, kite surfers, kayakers, walkers, dog walkers, hikers, beachcombers, photographers, and sightseers.

In the civil minutes, Judge Otero opines, among other things, thatthe Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there aresignificant questions of law or fact common to the entire classand, therefore, have fallen far short of demonstrating thatsignificant common questions of law or fact predominate over anyother questions affecting individual members.

Mettrum Ltd. and OrganiGram Inc. were both found selling medicalmarijuana that contained unauthorized chemicals, including thecontroversial pesticide myclobutanil, which produces hydrogencyanide when combusted and can lead to serious health problems.

The suit against OrganiGram was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Courton March 6 by Halifax-based Wagners Law Firm, while a separateaction against Mettrum was filed in Ontario Supreme Court by thefirm Roy O'Connor LLP.

Both actions are seeking certification from the courts and areasking that the companies be forced to refund patients' money, inaddition to paying out further damages.

The OrganiGram suit is led by Halifax patient Dawn Rae Downton,who was not previously a marijuana user but was prescribed medicalcannabis to alleviate serious back pain, the documents allege.

After taking the product daily, "Ms. Downton began to suffer fromsevere nausea and vomiting within approximately two weeks afterfirst consuming the Affected Product," the documents allege. "Theseverity of the symptoms restricted her ability to stand, walk orleave the house. She was confined to her home and bed for themajority of the time. Even light household chores becameunmanageable."

The Mettrum suit is led by Erin Christiansen, a Thunder Bay womanwho unknowingly ingested tainted product purchased from theToronto-based company, which has since been purchased by CanopyGrowth Corp., Canada's largest medical-marijuana producer.

"I was disturbed to learn that unapproved pest-control productswere used on Mettrum's medical-marijuana plants," Ms. Christiansensaid in a statement. "If I had known there was a risk thatMettrum's plants had been treated with an unapproved pesticide, Iwould never have purchased the products."

Neither OrganiGram CEO Denis Arsenault, nor Mettrum's owner,Canopy, were immediately available for comment on March 6. Theallegations have not been proven in court.

The tainted-cannabis problems have led to management shakeups atboth companies. OrganiGram announced a new CEO, Greg Engel, wouldbe taking the reins on March 13, while Mr. Arsenault is moving tothe board of directors as executive chairman. And former MettrumCEO Michael Haines was not retained by Canopy when it closed thedeal to purchase the company Jan. 31.

The problems emerged several months ago when Mettrum issued aseries of recalls in late 2016 due to the discovery of anunauthorized pesticide, pyrethrin. That led to subsequent teststhat turned up banned myclobutanil.

While Mettrum informed some patients of the situation, neither thecompany nor Health Canada disclosed the discovery of myclobutanilto the broader public, including prospective patients, in theirpress releases announcing the recalls.

When The Globe and Mail called Mettrum's customer help line inDecember, a reporter had to specifically ask about the presence ofmyclobutanil before the company offered up the information.

Soon after the Mettrum problem came to light, OrganiGram announcedits own recall due to myclobutanil, along with a second bannedpesticide, bifenazate. Alberta-based Aurora Cannabis Inc.discovered the issue with OrganiGram's supply when it purchased abulk shipment from the company and had it tested for contaminants.

The discovery of banned pesticides in a regulated product sold asmedicine has called into question Health Canada's oversight of thenascent medical-marijuana industry, particularly because thegovernment does not require companies to prove through regulartesting that their products are safe and free of unauthorizedpesticides such as myclobutanil, which is considered carcinogenic.

Health Canada told The Globe that it didn't require companies totest for such chemicals because the industry knew they were bannedand therefore shouldn't be using them -- which effectively leftcompanies to police themselves.

Myclobutanil, a fungicidal pesticide, is used to rid crops ofmildew, and is often employed as a dangerous shortcut byunscrupulous cannabis growers in order to save crops hit by anoutbreak. While the chemical is approved for some food crops,such as grapes, because it can be safely broken down by thedigestive system, it is not approved for plants that are smoked.Dow AgroSciences, which manufactures the chemical, warns againstusing the product on cannabis.

A former Mettrum employee told The Globe he witnessed myclobutanilbeing sprayed directly on the company's plants as far back as2014, despite knowing it was prohibited, and provided e-mailevidence showing that management was aware of the problem.Mettrum's former CEO, Mr. Haines, has not responded to numerousrequests for comment by The Globe.

"Various individuals have clearly expressed their concern anddisappointment over this situation and the [Mettrum] recalls,"David O'Connor -- dfo@royoconnor.ca -- of the firm Roy O'Connor,said on March 6. "This proposed class-action can provide theseindividuals with an efficient avenue to have their claimsaddressed in court."

Meanwhile, OrganiGram said that it conducted an internalinvestigation into its recall and could not determine how thechemical got into the company's plants.

Wagners Law Firm said more than 2,000 customers are estimated tohave purchased contaminated products from OrganiGram, which isbased in Moncton, N.B.

The proposed class-action suit against OrganiGram alleges that thecompany "manufactured its organic medical-cannabis product withouthaving in place adequate quality-control protocols."

The suit also alleges OrganiGram "took no immediate steps tomodify its manufacturing practices once it became aware of thepresence of prohibited pesticides in the Affected Product."

In particular, the suit claims customers of the company weremisled on the safety of the medicine by the company's organicdesignation, which was provided by certification agency EcocertCanada. That designation has since been suspended.

OrganiGram has offered customers a credit for the products theypurchased. However, the suit seeks to have OrganiGram refund thefinancial proceeds made from the recalled products, in addition toother damages.

"OrganiGram has acted in such a high-handed, wanton and recklessor deliberate manner, without due regard to public health andsafety as to warrant an award of punitive damages," the suitalleges.

METTRUM LTD: Canopy Growth Responds to Class Action---------------------------------------------------Details of a possible class action suit naming Mettrum HealthCorp., an entity that was fully acquired by Canopy GrowthCorporation ("Canopy Growth" or "the Company") on January 31, 2017have been publicly reported.

In response to these reports, the Company wishes to state that itconducted thorough due diligence during the process of acquiringMettrum Health Corp. and was aware of the extent and scope of therecall Mettrum was conducting.

Canopy Growth was, and continues to be satisfied with HealthCanada's independent decision to classify the Mettrum recall as aType III recall, defined as "a situation in which the use of, orexposure to, a product is not likely to cause any adverse healthconsequences."

The Company will defend itself vigorously against all suitsrelating to Mettrum recalls.

About Canopy Growth Corporation

Canopy Growth -- http://www.canopygrowth.com-- is a diversified cannabis company, offering diverse brands and curated cannabisstrain varieties in dried and oil extract forms. Through itswholly-owned subsidiaries, Canopy Growth operates numerous state-of-the-art production facilities with over half a million squarefeet of indoor and greenhouse production capacity. Canopy Growthhas established partnerships with leading sector names in Canadaand abroad.

Natalie Huffman, Steve Huffman, Inna Borboa Badran, et al. filed acomplaint on Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California, Southern Division against Midland CreditManagement Inc. and Does 1-10 alleging that they violated theTelephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they werecaused to suffer from a barraged of calls using an auto-dialer andartificial voice from the defendant in its attempt to collect onan alleged debt. The plaintiffs hold Midland Credit ManagementInc. and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedlyrefused to honor plaintiffs' do-not-call requests, attempted tobully plaintiffs into making immediate payment, and unlawfullyutilized an automatic dialer and automated voice.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment againstdefendants, $500 in statutory damages per violation, trebledamages in an amount up to $1,500 per violation, and furtherrelief as may be just. They are represented by Tammy Hussin --Tammy@HussinLaw.com -- of Hussin Law in Encinitas.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,Southern Division Case number 2:17-cv-01534

MINOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players' Wage Class Action Recertified-------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that a suit by minor leaguer baseballplayers alleging they are being paid less than minimum wage hasbeen recertified as a class action in federal court in SanFrancisco.

The players sued in February, claiming most earn less than $7,500annually in violation of several laws. Magistrate Judge Joseph C.Spero preliminarily granted class-action status in October 2015and withdrew the certification last July. After a motion toreconsider, Judge Spero ordered on March 7 to certify a class thatincluded players who participated since Feb. 7, 2011, in theCalifornia League, spring training, extended spring training orinstructional leagues and hadn't signed a major league contractbefore then.

Judge Spero recertified the players who participated in springtraining, extended spring training and instructional leagues as acollective under federal law and the California League players asa class under California state law.

In a 69-page order, Judge Spero told the parties to propose a caseschedule by April 28 and set a case management conference for May12.

Major League Baseball declined comment. Baseball Commissioner RobManfred said last year "this is not a dollars-and-cents issue" but"the irrationality of the application of traditional workplaceovertime rules to minor league baseball players."

MISONIX INC: Scalfani's Motion for Lead Plaintiff Remains Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Misonix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the request of RichardScalfani for appointment as lead plaintiff remains pending.

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholderof Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former CEOand CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Thecomplaint alleges that the Company's stock price was artificiallyinflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016 as aresult of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company'ssecurities filings concerning the Company's business, operations,and prospects and the Company's internal control over financialreporting. Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent aputative class of all persons (other than defendants, officers anddirectors of the Company, and their affiliates) who purchasedpublicly traded Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 andSeptember 14, 2016. Scalfani seeks an unspecified amount ofdamages for himself and for the putative class under the federalsecurities laws.

On November 18, 2016, Scalfani and another individual Misonixshareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, moved the Court to be appointed leadplaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of theputative class.

The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses tothe allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defendthe action. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been nodiscovery and there is no trial date.

Misonix, Inc. is a New York corporation which, through itspredecessors, was first organized in 1959. It designs,manufactures, develops and markets minimally invasive therapeuticultrasonic medical devices.

MULTI PACKAGING: Monteverde Investigates Securities Claims----------------------------------------------------------Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at theEmpire State Building in New York City, on March 5 disclosed thatit is investigating Multi Packaging Solutions InternationalLimited ("Multi Packaging" or "the Company") (NYSE: MPSX) and itsBoard of Directors for potential securities laws violations and/orbreaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of theCompany to WestRock Company ("WestRock"). Under the terms of theagreement, Multi Packaging shareholders will be entitled toreceive $18.00 for each share of Multi Packaging common stock theyown.

The investigation focuses on whether Multi Packaging and its Boardof Directors violated securities laws and/or breached theirfiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing toconduct a fair process 2) whether and by how much this proposedtransaction undervalues the Company by and 3) failing to discloseall material financial information in connection with the upcomingshareholder meeting on April 5, 2017.

If you own common stock in Multi Packaging and wish to obtainadditional information and protect your investments free ofcharge, please visit us athttp://www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail atjmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Defendants operate as Bloom's Tavern, an Irish restaurant and barlocated at 208 East 58th Street, New York, NY 10022 where Mahonand Wilson as a busboy and bar-back, cleaning the bathrooms andfloors, taking out the trash, picking up deliveries and stockingsupplies. Defendants allegedly did not provide wage notices andwage statements, thus failing to account Plaintiff's actual workhours.

NANTHEALTH INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline-----------------------------------------------------------------Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 8 disclosed that a class actionlawsuit has been filed against NantHealth, Inc. ("NantHealth" orthe "Company") (Nasdaq:NH) in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California on behalf of a class consistingof investors who purchased or otherwise acquired NantHealthsecurities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to NantHealth's falseand misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued inconnection with the Company's initial public offering on or aboutJune 2, 2016 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the openmarket between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017, both datesinclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages causedby defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the"Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/ormisleading statements, as well as failed to disclose materialadverse facts about the Company's business, operations, andprospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleadingstatements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Soon-Shiong funneled business to NantHealth through his donation to theUniversity of Utah, pursuant to the contractual terms of which theuniversity was effectively required to spend $10 million ongenetics analysis performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, thenumber of test orders that NantHealth reported to investors wasartificially inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong'sdonation to the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as aresult, NantHealth's public statements were materially false andmisleading at all relevant times.

On March 6, 2017, STAT, a news organization focused on medicalindustry reporting, published an article alleging that pursuant tothe terms of Soon-Shiong's donation to the University of Utah, theuniversity was effectively required to spend $10 million ongenetics analysis performed by NantHealth, an arrangement whichenabled NantHealth to inflate by more than 50 percent the numberof test orders it reported to investors in 2016. In addition, thearticle quoted two tax experts stating that the deal "appeared toviolate federal tax rules governing certain charitable donations"and "amount[ed] to indirect self-dealing by Soon-Shiong and hisfoundations." On this news, NantHealth's share price fell $1.67,or 23.29%, to close at $5.50 on March 6, 2017.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than May 8, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representativeparty acting on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discussyour rights or interests regarding this class action, pleasecontact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. ofGainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail attjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on March 8 disclosed that ithas filed a class action lawsuit in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California on behalf of a class(the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquiredNantHealth, Inc. ("NantHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NH)securities either: (1) pursuant or traceable to the Company'sregistration statement and prospectus issued in connection withthe Company's IPO which occurred on or about June 1, 2016; or (2)between June 1, 2016, and March 6, 2017, inclusive (the "ClassPeriod").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move theCourt no later than 60 days from March 8, 2017, to serve as leadplaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

On March 6, 2017, STAT, a news organization focused on medicalindustry reporting, published an article alleging that NantHealthfounder, Patrick Soon-Shiong ("Soon-Shiong"), had donated $12million to the University of Utah from three different tax-exemptentities controlled by him under a contract that required theUniversity to funnel much of that money into NantHealth. STATalleged that the scheme allowed the Company to inflate the numberof test orders it reported to investors. On this news, theCompany's stock price fell 23.2%, thereby injuring investors.

The filed complaint alleges claims under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. According to thecomplaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made falseand/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose materialadverse facts about the Company's business, operations, andprospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) thatSoon-Shiong had donated funds through nonprofit organizations tothe University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those fundsback into NantHealth; (2) that, as such, the Company and Soon-Shiong participated in the violation of federal tax laws --exposing the Company to possible civil and criminal liability; (3)that the Company improperly recorded orders received from theUniversity of Utah as GPS Cancer test orders; (4) that, as aresult, the Company reported false and inflated GPS Cancer orderfigures for the third quarter of 2016; and (5) that, as a resultof the foregoing, the Company's financial statements andDefendants' statements about NantHealth's business, operations,and prospects, were materially false and misleading.

If you purchased shares of NantHealth in connection with theCompany's IPO, or during Class Period, you may move the Court nolater than 60 days from March 8, 2017, to ask the Court to appointyou as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need nottake any action at this time; you may retain counsel of yourchoice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have anyquestions concerning this announcement or your rights or interestswith respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, bye-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website atwww.glancylaw.com.

Defendant builds and sells residential homes in Clarksville,Columbia and Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Caldwell worked for theDefendants as a bookkeeper. She claims to be misclassified as anindependent contractor, thus denied the usual benefits of beingemployed.

NEINSTEIN FIRM: Hodge's Case Personal Injury Not Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Michele HenryStaff and Kenyon Wallace, writing for Toronto Star,report that the accident victim at the centre of a case intoalleged "double-dipping" by a prominent Toronto law firm is in aclass by herself -- and what happened in her case didn't happen toany other former clients, an appeal court has been told.

Cassie Hodge, 45, who is alleged to have ended up with a fractionof her insurance settlement after hiring personal injury lawyerGary Neinstein and his firm, was the only former client of thefirm to have more fees taken from her than Ontario law allows,lawyers for the Neinstein firm argued on March 8 before a panel ofthe Ontario Court of Appeal.

The three judges have been asked to determine whether the caseshould be certified as a class-action lawsuit, which wouldpotentially involve up to 6,000 former clients of the Neinsteinfirm.

Neinstein lawyer Chris Paliare told an Osgoode Hall courtroom thatHodge, a mother of two from Brooklin, Ont., is "the only personidentified" among former clients of Neinstein "who appears to havepaid a slightly greater portion of 'costs' and that her case is"arguably the exception."

In simple terms, lawyers working on contingency -- "you don't payunless we win" -- cannot take a sum of money called "costs" inaddition to a percentage of the settlement, according to theSolicitor's Act, legislation governing how lawyers behave.

An ongoing Star investigation found personal injury lawyers inOntario routinely take this second payment, which critics call"double-dipping."

Originally, a Superior Court judge refused to certify theNeinstein case as a class action. Then a Divisional Courtreversed that decision. Class counsel Peter Waldmann was set toargue on March 9 in favour of keeping the class certification.

If the court of appeal panel decides to keep the classcertification, it will proceed to trial or a settlement, barringany further appeal. The case could have wide-rangingramifications for other personal injury cases in Ontario.

Meanwhile, at Queen's Park, Liberal MPP Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence), inspired in part by the Star's investigation, tabled aprivate member's bill calling for all contingency fees to becapped at 15 per cent of the settlements awarded to accidentvictims.

Titled the Personal Injury and Accident Victims Protection Act,the bill requires contingency fee agreements to state clearly howlawyers will get paid, calls for a ban on lawyer referral fees,and makes all advertising by personal injury lawyers subject topre-approval by the Law Society of Upper Canada. In addition,clients who have signed up with a personal injury lawyer would begranted a 10-day cooling-off period in which to cancel theiragreement. The Law Society of Upper Canada recently made a seriesof recommendations regarding the same subject.

Private member's bills rarely become law but Mr. Colle said theidea is to raise awareness of issues he is hearing about fromaccident victims and "put heat on the government to do somethingin this area."

On March 8, Ms. Hodge sat motionless, listening calmly whilelawyers for the Neinstein firm made their arguments.

Mr. Paliare told the court that Hodge, who still suffers fromchronic pain after her 2002 accident, is in a "class of one" andthat the cost-taking in her case was because of issues with thecase including the length of litigation that spanned eight years.There was no court approval for the cost-taking, the court heard.

Mr. Paliare and lawyer Odette Soriano argued that Ms. Hodge's caseshould not be a class action for a variety of reasons, including alack of common issues among the potential class members. TheNeinstein firm has a variety of retainers and not all clients usedthe same one, Mr. Paliare said. As well, he said, "the actualdollar amount charged at the end of the case is typically lessthan the percentage fee of the agreement without any costs."

For those reasons and others the cases are "highlyindividualized," Ms. Soriano said and should each be evaluated ontheir own.

NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Action, May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline--------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 7 disclosed that a classaction lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the NorthernDistrict of California on behalf of investors who purchasedNetflix, Inc. ("Netflix") (NFLX) securities between July 22, 2014and October 15, 2014.

The complaint alleges that Company insiders knew from priorexperience and analyses that price increases could have asubstantial negative impact on subscriber growth; yet on July 21,2014, CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells told the market thatthe impact of the price increase had been "minimal" and "nominal."The complaint alleges, however, that just three months later, onOctober 15, 2014, Defendants revealed that subscriber growthnumbers were so low that the Company was forced to slash itsprojected earnings by nearly half, suggesting that "[as] best wecan tell, the primary cause is the slightly higher price we nowhave compared to a year ago."

If you suffered a loss in Netflix you have until May 1, 2017 torequest that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Yourability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve asa lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contactVincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephoneat 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/netflix-inc.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has representedinvestors in securities litigations involving financial fraud andviolations of shareholder rights.

NOVARTIS PHARMA: Judge Strikes Down Class Action Certification--------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner used few words whenstriking down certification of a class action brought by PublicJustice. But he did it with his usual flair: By comparing eyedrops to . . . cats?

The case involved consumers who alleged that 33 varieties ofprescription eye drops used for the treatment of glaucoma were toolarge for their eyes. The plaintiffs claimed they overpaid forunnecessarily large drops that would have been just as effectiveif sold in a smaller size.

"Suppose the class members all happened to own pedigreed cats,"wrote Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SeventhCircuit, in a ruling issued on March 6, "and the breeders who hadsold the cats to the class members had told them that asresponsible cat owners they would have to feed the cats kibblesduring the day and Fancy Feast at night and buy a fountain foreach cat because cats prefer to drink out of a fountain (wheregravity works for them) rather than out of a bowl (where gravityworks against them) and they don't like to share a fountain withanother cat."

Then suppose the cat food got expensive, and the fountains didn'twork, wrote Judge Posner, who is a cat owner.

The cat owners became dissatisfied. "Yet would anyone think theycould successfully sue the breeders? For what? The breeders hadmade no misrepresentations," he wrote. The cat owners might bedisappointed, but they have no case. "It's the same here," hesaid.

The bottom line, Judge Posner said, is that even if a smaller eyedrop would be cheaper and equally effective, consumers had stillreceived what they paid for. Notably, he wrote, there was noallegation of collusion or misrepresentation, nor any suggestionthat the eye drops are unsafe.

"The fact that a seller does not sell the product that you want,or at the price you'd like to pay, is not an actionable injury; itis just a regret or disappointment," Posner wrote.

In so ruling, Judge Posner reversed a 2016 class certificationdecision and ordered U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of theSouthern District of Illinois to dismiss the case with prejudiceon remand.

The case, which drew amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce and the American Tort Reform Association, touches on twohot topics in the class action defense bar: Appeals of classcertification orders and cases brought over injuries thatdefendants consider to be immaterial. The stricken certificationorder had involved eight classes of Illinois and Missouriconsumers, and the Seventh Circuit decision concluded that theplaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to assert how theyhad been harmed.

"One cannot bring a suit in federal court without pleading thatone has been injured in some way (physically, financially --whatever) by the defendant," Judge Posner wrote. "That's what'srequired for standing."

Leah Nicholls, a lawyer at Public Justice in Washington who arguedfor the plaintiffs, declined to comment. In a letter filed onMarch 7 in a similar case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit, Ms. Nicholls noted that the five-page opinioncontained only one paragraph addressing the standing issue and was"at odds with the law" in finding that the plaintiffs didn't haveinjuries. "Because the decision fails to meaningfully grapplewith the plaintiffs' standing allegations, this court should giveit no weight," she wrote.

Gregory Ostfeld -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- co-chairman of theChicago litigation practice at Greenberg Traurig, argued on behalfof the defendants. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Tatiana Yastremski, a spokeswoman for Novartis PharmaceuticalsCorp., which owns Alcon Laboratories Inc., Mr. Ostfeld's client,wrote in an email: "Novartis is very pleased with the decision ofthe Seventh Circuit and to finally bring conclusion to thismatter. The court's decision validates our original position thatthe case was without merit."

The other defendants in the case were Pfizer Inc., Allergan Inc.and Merck & Co. Inc.

Omega is a nutritional products company that purportedly develops,produces, and delivers products to improve the nutritionalintegrity of foods, dietary supplements and animal feeds.

On March 1, 2017, the Company disclosed that it received asubpoena from the SEC requesting information in connection with aninvestigation relating to a Company subsidiary's compliance withits probation terms and the Company's protection of whistle-bloweremployees. The Company also disclosed that the investigation couldresult in a material adverse effect on its business, reputation,results of operation, and financial condition. On this news, theprice of Omega common stock fell $6.25 per share, or 23.8%, toclose at $20.00 per share on March 2, 2017, on unusually heavytrading volume.

ONONDAGA, NY: Juvenile Solitary Confinement Case Can Proceed------------------------------------------------------------Syracuse's Editorial Board reports that thanks to a federal judge,16- and 17-year-old youths being held at the Onondaga CountyJustice Center jail no longer can be put into solitaryconfinement. Judge David Hurd's order is temporary while a class-action lawsuit over the practice proceeds, but the jail ought totake the court's not-so-subtle hint and end this barbaricpunishment permanently.

The descriptions of conditions in "the box" were hair-raisingenough, but photos published by Syracuse.com drove home the point.Youths were being confined to a 7-foot-by-9-foot cell for 23 hoursa day; allowed one hour of "recreation" in a barren cage; forcedto endure taunts and harassment from adult inmates; deprived ofreading materials and schooling; and isolated from meaningfulhuman interaction with their jailers or peers held in solitary.

Holding 16- and 17-year-olds in such harsh conditions can dolasting psychological harm to them while doing little to moderatetheir bad behavior, say experts for the plaintiffs. In thecorrections community, the prevailing winds are blowing firmly theother way. President Barack Obama banned solitary confinement ofjuveniles in federal prison. Gov. Andrew Cuomo created a specialstate prison to house 16- and 17-year-olds. Even New York City'snotorious Rikers Island has ended "disciplinary segregation" forinmates 21 and under.

In short, Onondaga County is an outlier. If we were the bettingsort, we'd bet the county is going to come out on the losing endof this federal lawsuit.

The aim should be to set nonviolent juvenile offenders on a pathto becoming productive adults.

Two years ago, Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney agreed toend solitary confinement for juveniles at the county-runJamesville Correctional Facility. That only shifted the problemto the downtown jail, run by Onondaga County Sheriff Gene Conway.The county planned to quickly move two of the 29 teensincarcerated there to the Hillbrook Detention Facility forjuveniles, with the rest to follow.

A more permanent solution lies in the hands of the stateLegislature. New York and North Carolina are the only two statesthat automatically treat 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in thecriminal justice system, no matter how minor their offenses. Thisputs teens into lockups with adults, where they are at greaterrisk of sexual assault, injury and suicide, according to datacited by the governor.

In his 2017-18 budget, Mr. Cuomo proposes "raising the age" ofcriminal responsibility to 18, except for violent crimes, andproviding appropriate education, mental health treatment andprobation to youths. The aim should be to set nonviolent juvenileoffenders on a path to becoming productive adults, rather than allbut ensuring they end up in jail again or unable to find a job dueto their criminal history. Raising the age is the humane thing todo.

There are some who feel young offenders get what they deserve, injail and in life. This is not only cruel; it is short-sighted.No child should be treated in this way. Meanwhile, the costs oftreating nonviolent juvenile offenders as adults in the criminaljustice system pile ever higher for individuals, families,communities and society.

Watson is covered by a health plan provided the Defendants.Plaintiff alleges she has received prescription drug coveragethrough this plan but is obligated to make a "co-payment" whenfilling a prescription. The amount the pharmacy collect from thepatient often exceeds the amount that the insurance pays thepharmacy for the patient's prescription drug. This results in thepatient being overcharged for prescription drugs and results inthe patient paying the entire copayment and the Defendantscollecting hidden additional payments. There is no sharing ofcosts between the patient and the plan. Plaintiff seeks redressunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and theRacketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Company was served with notice of the proceeding on March 6.The proposed suit was filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotiaby a Halifax-based law firm. The filing seeks to representOrganigram clients who purchased and consumed medical marijuanathat was later found to contain trace elements of the pesticidesmyclobutanil and bifenazate which are not approved for use bylicensed growers.

Denis Arsenault, Organigram's Chief Executive Officer, said theCompany offered all non-insured clients impacted by the voluntaryrecall an account credit equal to the full purchase price of therecalled product. He also noted that public comments made onMarch 6 by the lawyer seeking to bring the action had erroneouslystated Organigram had offered refunds to its clients instead ofproviding account credits and newly harvested marijuana. "We havebeen in constant communication with clients who purchased recalledproduct. We have been clear that Organigram will meet their needsby providing account credits valued at 100 per cent of thatproduct's value and will make freshly harvested and tested productavailable to them. The majority of our clients are very satisfiedwith this action and are already using their credits."

"In terms of the proposed class-action suit, we intend tovigorously defend our company and its actions related to theproduct recall," stated Mr. Arsenault. "We have already engagedBorden Ladner Gervais LLP, one of Canada's leading class-actiondefence law firms, to assist with our defence." The Supreme Courtof Nova Scotia will likely take a number of months to determine ifit will allow the proposed suit to proceed as a class action. "Inthe meantime, our primary focus will be on meeting the needs ofour clients," he said.

Organigram recently completed a thorough investigation into eventsthat led to the December and January voluntary recalls. As aresult of that investigation, the company put a number of newgrowing and harvesting protocols in place. All marijuanaharvested since the recall has tested negative for pesticides. "Wehave also decided to post all testing results on our website,"said Mr. Arsenault. "With the new procedures in place, we arefully confident in our ability to deliver high-quality product toour clients."

About Organigram Holdings Inc.

Organigram Holdings Inc. is a TSX Venture Exchange listed companywhose wholly owned subsidiary, Organigram Inc., is a licensedproducer of medical marijuana in Canada. Organigram is focused onproducing the highest quality, condition specific medicalmarijuana for patients in Canada. Organigram's facility is locatedin Moncton, New Brunswick and the Company is regulated by theAccess to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR").

OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Sanford Heisler Files Wage Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Sanford Heisler, LLP, on March 8 disclosed that it filed a classaction against Overland Solutions, Inc. ("OSI") on behalf of itsCalifornia insurance inspectors for violations of the CaliforniaLabor Code. The complaint alleges that OSI, an industry leader ininsurance underwriting support services, willfully misclassifiesCalifornia field inspectors as independent contractors to avoidpaying inspectors wages and business expenses, despite exercisingextensive control over how inspectors perform their work.

According to the complaint filed in the California Superior Court,County of Alameda, insurance inspectors are the field workforce inOSI's Survey Division, and are an integral part of OSI's business.Inspectors conduct inspections of insured property and providereports to OSI's clients, which are major insurance carriersnationwide. As field representatives of OSI, inspectors gothrough an extensive hiring and onboarding process, including arigorous background check, an orientation program, trainingmodules, and quizzes. On the job, inspectors are under thecontrol and supervision of OSI, and must follow the company'sstrict Standard Operating Procedures.

"This level of control constitutes an employer-employeerelationship," says Michael Palmer -- mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Co-Chair of the Firm's Wage & Hour Practice Group. "Bymislabeling an entire workforce as non-employees, OSI tried toavoid paying inspectors their lawful wages. This lawsuitchallenges this unfair practice and seeks to ensure that theworkers are not denied their rights and protections under thelaw."

Lead Plaintiff Martin Fletscher, a current OSI insurance inspectorin California, alleges that he and other inspectors are paid onlyfor time spent conducting onsite inspections and writinginspection reports. Inspectors are not paid for time spent onvarious other types of work, such as training, preparing for andscheduling the inspections, travel to and from inspection sites,or time spent re-inspecting and re-writing reports. They are alsonot reimbursed by OSI for expenses like gas and various inspectionequipment.

"As employees, Mr. Fletscher and the class are entitled to be paidfor all time worked and to reimbursements for business expenses,"says Xinying Valerian, Senior Litigation Counsel at SanfordHeisler. "This is wage theft, and California law does not allowfor it."

The complaint seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties and toenjoin OSI from continuing misclassification of its workforce.

About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP 00 http://www.sanfordheisler.com/-- is a public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices inNew York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco and San Diego.

The Firm specializes in civil rights litigation, representingplaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wageviolations, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims. Thefirm also represents individuals and has achieved particularsuccess in the representation of executives and attorneys inemployment disputes. More at http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499-5200 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

All non-safety-sensitive applicants who are applying for employment by the Palm Beach County School District, and who will be subject to Defendant's suspicionless drug testing as a result of School District Policy 3.96 (the "All-Applicant Policy").

The Complaint is a putative class action seeking declaratory andinjunctive relief, alleging that the Defendant has violated theFourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by requiring thePlaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons to provide asample of their bodily fluids for suspicionless drug testing as acondition for hiring.

Ms. Friedenberg also asks the Court to appoint her counsel asClass Counsel.

All individuals currently or formerly employed at one of Defendant PNG's Ohio Subsidiary Casinos, including: Defendant COGV, Defendant TGV, Defendant DREV, and Defendant YREV, in a tipped position for which a tip credit was applied at any time between November 7, 2013 and the date of a court order conditionally certifying the class.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order: (i) implementing aprocedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claimsis sent to the proposed class, and (ii) requiring the Defendantsto identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Peoples Bank and Trust Company hired a third party, Reverse LiveTransfers, who commissioned a telemarketing call to a cellulartelephone number of Mr. Cunningham for the purposes of advertisingtheir goods and services, using an automated dialing system.Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed tohim for telemarketing purposes.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motions to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suit Underway-----------------------------------------------------------------Pilgrim's Pride Corporation has filed motions to dismiss theactions in the case, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal yearended December 25, 2016.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, ten purportedclass action lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois against Pilgrim's and 13 otherproducers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers ofbroiler chickens.

On October 5, 2016, the Court consolidated the complaints, forpretrial purposes, into actions on behalf of three differentputative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumersand commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These actionsare now styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

The current operative complaints filed on behalf of each putativeclass allege, among other things, a conspiracy among defendants toreduce output and fix, increase, maintain, and stabilize theprices of broiler chickens in violation of the U.S. antitrust lawsfrom the period of January 2008 to the present. The complaints onbehalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers also includecauses of action under various state consumer protection laws,unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment common laws. Thecomplaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of theputative class. Pilgrim's has filed motions to dismiss theseactions.

The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the worldwith operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and PuertoRico.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lead Plaintiff Not Yet Appointed in "Hogan" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the classaction complaint filed by Patrick Hogan against Pilgrim's PrideCorporation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, forthe fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himselfand a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim'sstock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a classaction complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District ofColorado against Pilgrim's and its named executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Pilgrim's SECfilings contained statements that were rendered materially falseand misleading by Pilgrim's failure to disclose that (i) thecompany colluded with several of its industry peers to fix pricesin the broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re BroilerChicken Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted aviolation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim's revenuesduring the class period were the result of illegal conduct and(iv) that Pilgrim's lacked effective internal control overfinancial reporting, as well as stating that Pilgrim's industrywas anticompetitive.

The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff and noconsolidated class action complaint has been filed.

The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the worldwith operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and PuertoRico.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Suit Filed in Oklahoma Court-------------------------------------------------------------Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017,for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that on January 27,2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chickenfarmers was brought against Pilgrim's and 10 other producers inthe Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, aconspiracy among the defendants to reduce competition in thedomestic market for broiler chickens. Plaintiffs' allegations aresimilar to those raised in the In re Broiler Chicken AntitrustLitigation, and seek, among other relief, treble damages.

"We believe we have strong defenses in response to the plaintiffs'allegations and intend to contest these actions vigorously. Wecannot predict the outcome of these actions nor when they will beresolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in any of theseactions, we could be liable for damages, which could be materialand could adversely affect our financial condition or results ofoperations," the Company said.

The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the worldwith operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and PuertoRico.

PRO FOOTBALL: Hall of Fame Game Class Action Returns to Ohio------------------------------------------------------------CBS58 reports that a class action lawsuit filed against the ProFootball Hall of Fame over the cancellation of the 2016 Hall ofFame Game has been transferred back to Ohio.

Hall of Fame said on March 7 they will provide ticketholders: fouradmission tickets to the museum; a commemorative photo of the Hallof Fame Class of 2016; a copy of the 2016-17 Pro Football Hall ofFame Yearbook; the right, before the general public, to purchase aticket for a future Pro Football Hall of Fame EnshrinementCeremony or Pro Football Hall of Fame Game for one year in any ofthe next five years; and a one-time 30 percent discount for thepurchase of any merchandise from the museum's online store.

The ruling by the United States District Court Central District ofCalifornia Western Division was made late on March 6.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame issued the following statement:

"The Hall of Fame is pleased with the decision by Judge TerryHatter, Jr. to return this case to Ohio. The ruling confirms thathearing the case in California lacked merit. The Pro FootballHall of Fame reiterates that we share the disappointment of fansdue to the cancellation of the game. We take full responsibilityfor what occurred and remain committed to reimbursing thoseticketholders adversely affected by the cancellation, as set forthin our previously announced special reimbursement plan. It isimportant to understand the decision to cancel the 2016 Hall ofFame Game was made solely to respect player safety. The specialreimbursement plan announced shortly after the game cancellationremains available to all qualified ticketholders to the 2016 Hallof Fame Game who have not yet taken advantage of the offer.Notwithstanding the language on the tickets, ticketholders will befully refunded the face-value of their ticket. Additionally, theHall of Fame will also refund all processing, shipping andhandling fees, pre-paid parking purchased through the Hall ofFame, pre-sale reservation fees, and one night of hotelaccommodations to eligible fans, subject to appropriate review,approval, and verification."

The three-judge panel ordered plaintiff Elizabeth Lopez-Negron'scase back to trial court, saying that there were multiple mattersof knowledge, intent, feasibility and reasonableness that had beeninappropriately decided before any answer to her complaint wasfiled or any fact-finding had begun.

Given that Ms. Lopez-Negron has also filed a substantially similarwhistleblower lawsuit against Progressive in New Jersey federalcourt, the panel also ordered that upon remand, the trial courtmust sort out whether or not it's appropriate for the state courtsuit to proceed parallel to the federal one, which surviveddismissal.

Ms. Lopez-Negron's state court suit was dismissed in November 2015for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Shemade various allegations, essentially arguing that Progressivecaused her and others to buy "health-first" automobile insurancepolicies through its website, even though Medicare and Medicaidbeneficiaries like her aren't eligible for such coverage.

She also said that Progressive had improperly rejected her claimsfor medical services after she was involved in a motor vehiclecrash in Philadelphia in 2010, thus forcing her to improperlybring those claims to Medicare.

But Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries aren't eligible forhealth-first plans because federal law requires the governmentprograms to be secondary payers if a primary payer -- Progressivein the instant case -- exists.

Although Ms. Lopez-Negron is covered by Medicare, she selected,paid for and received a health-first plan from Progressive afterapplying for it on her website and because the insurer apparentlydidn't know that she was on Medicare, the panel said.

After the crash, her medical bills went to Progressive, whichdenied paying them because of her health-first plan. They thenwent to Medicare, which paid them, apparently by mistake. Medicaredenied payment for her hospital stay at Aria Health System,because the claims weren't submitted on time and because Ariaisn't an approved Medicare provider. Progressive eventually paid aportion of the Aria bill, the judges said.

Ms. Lopez-Negron also sued the other driver involved in the crash,and that driver's insurer, GEICO, settled for an undisclosedamount. Medicare, having since discovered its error, placed alien on the settlement proceeds to recover what it had paid forher bills.

Her federal lawsuit came first, in January 2014, claiming thatProgressive violated federal and New Jersey false claims acts forrejecting medical bills and instructing her to inappropriatelysubmit claims to the government program. The case was unsealed inMarch 2015 after the U.S. declined to intervene. New Jersey alsodeclined later that year.

The instant suit was filed in February 2014 and is based on thesame facts, with many allegations pulled verbatim, or nearly so,from her federal complaint, the panel said.

The state court dismissed her suit after concluding thatProgressive's online application was adequate and providedMedicare-covered customers with enough information to inform themthat they're not eligible for the health-first option. It alsoruled that Lopez-Negron had failed to show that Progressive haddone anything that could be considered wrong or fraudulent.

Several months later, the federal court denied dismissal, findingthat Progressive had at least three chances to prevent the sale ofhealth-first plans to people like Ms. Lopez-Negron. It could'vebuilt its online application in a way to stop improper purchases;it could've used repeated interactions between insurers and buyersto ensure that health-first policies weren't held by federallycovered people; and it could've asked "the simple question" ofwhat other insurance customers had, the federal court said.

The state panel noted that the federal court's decisionstrengthened their position and listed a number of possiblefactual disputes, including the reasonableness of Progressive'swebsite design and navigation. It also said that Lopez-Negron'sfraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and other claims arebest evaluated after discovery.

Jeremy E. Abay -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- a lawyer for Ms. Lopez-Negron, told Law360 on March 7 that the favorable ruling meansthat Progressive will now have to explain why it didn't followstraightforward regulations and improperly shifted medical costsonto consumers and taxpayers.

PTC INC: Settlement Remains Pending in "Crandall" Case------------------------------------------------------PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the quarterlyperiod ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement in the case,Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., is subject to execution andfinal court approval of definitive settlement documentations.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a putative class actionlawsuit captioned Matthew Crandall v. PTC Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-10471, was filed against us and certain of our current andformer officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts, ostensibly on behalf of purchasers ofour stock during the period November 24, 2011 through July 29,2015. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, interest,attorneys' fees and costs, alleges (among other things) that,during that period, PTC's public disclosures concerninginvestigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission andthe U.S. Department of Justice into U.S. Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct matters in China (the "China Investigation") were false and/ormisleading."

"The parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit for an amount thatis not material to our results of operations and the associatedliability was accrued in our fiscal 2016 results. The settlementis subject to execution and final court approval of definitivesettlement documentations. We cannot predict the outcome of thisaction nor when it will be resolved.

PTC is a global computer software and services company. We areorganized in two primary businesses: the Internet of Things (IoT)and Solutions.

A federal judge March 3 declined to resolve the dispute at thesummary judgment stage, citing lingering factual questions as towhether Putnam acted imprudently or disloyally in putting its owninvestment products in the 401(k) plan covering its employees. Thejudge's two-page order indicated that he was still weighing how toresolve claims that Putnam engaged in transactions prohibited bythe Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

At least 19 financial companies, including Morgan Stanley, WellsFargo and Charles Schwab Corp., have been sued in the past threeyears over the in-house investment products in their 401(k) plans.The Putnam case is the first to have been certified as a classaction and reach the summary judgment stage. Seven other caseshave survived motions to dismiss.

In the Putnam case, the judge also allowed the company's workersto move forward with claims that the company should be forced toturn over the profits earned from the in-house funds in its 401(k)plan. Allowing such a claim -- referred to as "disgorgement" --can increase the amount of money at stake in a given case.

Judges have disagreed over whether disgorgement is available incases over in-house 401(k) investments. The employees suingAmerican Century have been authorized to seek disgorgement, whilethe workers suing Allianz and Deutsche Bank had their disgorgementbids blocked, despite receiving otherwise favorable rulings.

Putnam's 401(k) plan has about 3,400 participants and $615 millionin assets, according to government filings.

Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Massachusetts wrote the decision.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the CodeDivision Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriersrely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holdsthe largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMAtechnology and it incorporated into virtually every relevantcellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead takenadvantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintainmonopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing tolicense and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of itspatents to competing chipset makers.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the CodeDivision Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriersrely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holdsthe largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMAtechnology and it incorporated into virtually every relevantcellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead takenadvantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintainmonopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing tolicense and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of itspatents to competing chipset makers.

Queens Dollar, Inc., operates as 99 Cents Rush a retail storeorganized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,with a principal place of business at 1466 Westchester Avenue,Bronx, New York 10472. Barrera has been employed a stock personand general helper on or around 2007, through the present.

RED BLUFF: Female Athletes File Title IX Class Action-----------------------------------------------------Josh Copitch, writing for KRCR News, reports that a Title IXcomplaint has been filed against Red Bluff Joint Union High SchoolDistrict (RBJUHSD) claiming that the school does not give femaleathletes equal access to sports programs and facilities.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal lawthat says no one in the U.S. should be excluded from participationin, be denied the benefits of or be the subject of discriminationin any education program or activity.

Female athletes at the high school are alleging that RBHS femalestudents are being denied the same level of equipment, facilitiesand access as the male students at the school.

In the class action complaint, lawyers say that girls represent52% of the student body at RBHS while boys represent 48% and yetonly 38% of the athletic participation slots at RBHS are availableto girls.

The complaint highlights several differences between thefacilities for female and male athletes including things like thegirls' softball field which the suit alleges has many holes thatpose a danger to the players, while the boys' baseball field iswell maintained.

On top of the field conditions, the court document says that theboy's baseball program has batting cages in a metal building witha roof where they can practice when it rains. While the girls'team are required to practice in the gym where they can not usesoftballs and must use Wiffle balls off of a tee. The girls' teammade repeated requests to the District for use of the battingcages when the boys were not using them but they were denied.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Johnson Case-----------------------------------------------------------------Glenn Minnis, writing for Florida Record, reports that anappellate court in Florida has ordered a new trial in a cancer-related case in which tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds was ordered topay a record-high $23.6 billion judgment.

According to a report by the Courtroom View Network, the decisioncomes in the wake of the widow of Michael Johnson being awardedthe amount by an Escambia County circuit-court jury after it wasestablished Johnson smoked cigarettes for most of his life beforedying of lung cancer.

In the suit, attorneys for Cynthia Johnson argued Reynolds'executives conspired to hide the dangers and damages of cigaretteuse, greatly contributing to her husband's nicotine addiction andeventual demise.

In rendering its ruling, the 1st District Court of Appeal foundmost of the award settled on by the 2014 jury was excessive andfueled by an improper closing argument by plaintiff attorneysvilifying Reynolds for simply defending itself in the litigation.

Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large told theFlorida Record he agrees with the appellate court's order callingfor a new trial.

"The appeal case stems from the occurrence of an improper closingargument," he said. "It's clear the plaintiffs' attorneys engagedin such action and the verdict was a direct function of that. Theclosing argument focused on clouding the minds of jurors anddirectly led to the absurdly excessive award."

The case stems from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decisiondecertifying Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., a class-action tobaccosuit originally filed in 1994 in which the court found individualcases could rely on certain jury findings in the original case,including findings that tobacco companies had conspired to hidethe dangers of smoking from consumers.

Still, the appeals courts rendered in its verdict that"[p]laintiffs may not denigrate defendants for contesting the veryfacts that they, as plaintiffs, are required by law to prove."

The court went on to essentially use plaintiff's attorneys' ownwords against them, quoting from their closing argument in whichthey chastised Reynolds for failing to "come clean" on the dangersof smoking and the methods by which the tobacco industry targetedunsuspected consumers for much of the early 20th century.

The appellate-court opinion mentioned that a new trial on punitivedamages only came after the defense rejected its remittitur to $16million on punitives.

The Johnson verdict dwarfs any other jury award ever rendered inan Engle progeny case, with the largest prior award coming in 2014in the Hubbird vs. Reynolds case ordered by the 11th JudicialCircuit at $28 million.

As for why something wasn't said or done earlier in the Johnsoncase to curb what the appellate court now sees as unwarrantedabuses toward the defense, Large seemed dumbfounded.

"I don't know what else counsel could have done to change things,"he said. "Each time they tried to object, they were overruled.It's often times difficult for an unpopular defendant to their getday in court. That's why the appellate courts are often needed tostraighten things out."

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,406 Broin II Lawsuits Pending in Florida-------------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,there were 2,406 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There havebeen no Broin II trials since 2007.

Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flightattendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailmentscaused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins.

In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Brown &Williamson Holdings, Inc., and other cigarette manufacturerdefendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of $300 millionin three annual $100 million installments, allocated among thecompanies by market share, to fund research on the early detectionand cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It alsorequired those companies to pay a total of $49 million for theplaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses.

RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; andB&W's was approximately $31 million. The settlement agreement,among other things, limits the types of claims class members maybring and eliminates claims for punitive damages. The settlementagreement also provides that, in individual cases by class membersthat are referred to as Broin II lawsuits, the defendant will bearthe burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certainspecifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "generalcausation." With respect to all other liability issues, includingwhether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or herexposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specificcausation," individual plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof.On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved thesettlement.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Smoking Class Suits Pending in U.S.---------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,25 class-action cases, excluding the shareholder case, werepending in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. Theseclass actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly causedby cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damagesallegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. AmericanTobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class ofpersons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobaccoproducts, finding that the district court failed to properlyassess variations in the governing state laws and whether commonissues predominated over individual issues. Since the FifthCircuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaintshave been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal.Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and moststate courts that have considered the issue have rejected classcertification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smokerclass actions have been certified by a federal court - In re Simon(II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA Inc.,both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of New York and were later decertified.

Class-action suits based on claims that class members are at agreater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco orexposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damagesare pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or theiraffiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts inCalifornia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,New York, North Carolina and West Virginia.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates orindemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices understate law or violates federal RICO. Such suits are pending instate courts in Illinois and Missouri.

E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI,and other RAI affiliates in California state and federal courts.In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, LorillardTobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claimsthat e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette productsor failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certainsubstances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to stateconsumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery ofeconomic damages.

Several class actions relating to claims in advertising andpromotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brandcigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, theseplaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive-free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising andpromotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are lessharmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated stateconsumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligentor intentional misrepresentation.

Additional class actions relating to alleged personal injuriespurportedly caused by use of cigarettes or exposure to ETS arepending.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care costrecovery actions in the form of class actions.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Held in "Turner" Case----------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Turner v. R. J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000),the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco"lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, theIllinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a staypending the court's final appeal decision in the Price casedescribed above. The stay subsequently expired, and the courtaccordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of whichwere continued by agreement of the parties. The next statusconference was scheduled for February 22, 2017.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in "Howard" Case-----------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Howard v. Brown &Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of B&W"lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trialjudge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolutionof the Price case. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth DistrictCourt of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There iscurrently no activity in the case.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: June 5 Status Conference in "Collora" Case-------------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Collora v. R. J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJRTobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conferenceis scheduled for June 5, 2017.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference on June 5 in "Black" Case--------------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Black v. Brown &Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class ofpurchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference isscheduled for June 5, 2017.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Case Pending----------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a decision is pending onRJR Vapor's motion to dismiss the case, Harris v. R. J. ReynoldsVapor Co.

RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, thatplaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit noticerequired by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case bedismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued onMarch 2, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR Vapor's motion todismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintifffiled a second amended complaint on October 31, 2016, and RJRVapor has again moved to dismiss. Oral argument occurred onJanuary 19, 2017. A decision is pending.

SAKS FIFTH: Faces Wage Class Action in New York State Court-----------------------------------------------------------Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Saks Fifth Avenuewas hit with a class action in New York state court on March 6accusing the high-end retailer of unlawfully deducting employees'wages at its flagship department store in Manhattan.

Lead plaintiff Amra Divljanovic, a sales employee at Saks' 611Fifth Ave. store, complained that the company disregarded New Yorkstate labor law and federal Fair Labor Standards Act regulationswhen it unfairly penalized sales staff and docked their pay forreturned merchandise over which the employees had no control.

SANTA FE NATURAL: Motion for Class Certification Due April 2018---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs are to file a motion for class certification by April3, 2018, in the class action lawsuits against Santa Fe NaturalTobacco Co., Inc. alleging "No Additive/Natural/Organic" claims,Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTCrelating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" inthe labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURALAMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bringclaims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putativenationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,in some instances, RAI. A total of 16 such actions have been filedin nine U.S. district courts.

In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases generallyallege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practicestatutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligentmisrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use ofdescriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC'sNATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek variouscategories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctiverelief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motionbefore the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district courtfor pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered thatthese cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before JudgeJames O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District ofNew Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrialpurposes in that court.

The cases that were filed in or transferred for pretrial purposesto the transferee court are as follows:

The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring theplaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaintnaming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaintalleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair tradepractices statutes - California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,New York, Ohio, and West Virginia - based on the use ofdescriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC'sNATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjustenrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breachof express warranty claims on behalf of a national class ofNATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers. The state deceptiveand unfair trade practice statutory and unjust enrichment claimsare brought on behalf of state-specific classes in the 12 stateslisted above and, in some instances, state-specific subclasses.

On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,and a hearing on that motion is scheduled for March 22, 2017.

On January 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidatedamended class action complaint. The transferee court's schedulingorder, as amended, provides for the plaintiffs to file a motionfor class certification by April 3, 2018, and a hearing on theclass certification motion on July 13-14, 2018.

The State of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency administersunemployment insurance through automated programs designed,implemented, and/or maintained by the Defendants. This system hasresulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants beingaccused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong. The defectiveprograms and/or their implementation resulted in claimants beingfalsely accused of intentional misrepresentation and assessedonerous financial penalties because of multiple discrepanciesbetween employer and employee-reported information.

(a) all natural persons with New York addresses (b) who were sent a letter by defendant in the form represented by Exhibit A (c) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action, and (d) on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.

Ms. Romano further asks that Shaked Law Group, PC and Edelman,Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for theclass.

Defendants provide lawn, tree, and shrub care and maintenanceservices throughout Michigan where Plaintiff was employed as aterritory service representative between approximately May 2013and November 2016.

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation-----------------------------------------------------------------The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company remains a defendant in the case, Inre Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for thequarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that werethe subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has beennamed as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on andafter June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead CaseNo. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutoryand common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wildbird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previouslypending government proceedings associated with such sales. Theplaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action onbehalf of all persons and entities in the United States whopurchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs asserthundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,compensatory, consequential, and restitution), punitive and trebledamages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends tovigorously defend the consolidated action. At this point in theproceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate aprobable loss, if any, associated with the action and,accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company'sconsolidated financial statements with respect to the action.There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result ofan adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs,will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows.

Scotts Miracle-Gro is a manufacturer and marketer of brandedconsumer lawn and garden products in North America and Europe.

SCYNEXIS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on March 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit hasbeen filed against SCYNEXIS, Inc. ("Scynexis" or the "Company")(NASDAQ:SCYX) and certain of its officers. The class action,filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, anddocketed under 17-cv-01565, is on behalf of a class consisting ofinvestors who purchased or otherwise acquired Scynexis securities:(1) pursuant and/or traceable to Scynexis' false and misleadingRegistration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection withthe Company's initial public offering on or about May 2, 2014 (the"IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market betweenMay 2, 2014 and March 2, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "ClassPeriod"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants'violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Scynexis securities betweenMay 2, 2014 and March 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you haveuntil May 8, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as LeadPlaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtainedat www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact RobertS. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mailare encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,and number of shares purchased.

Scynexis, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that develops anddistributes intravenous drugs for the treatment of serious andlife-threatening invasive fungal infections in humans.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade materially false and/or misleading statements, as well asfailed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company'sbusiness, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclosethat: (i) Scynexis's lead product SCY-078 entailed substantialundisclosed health and safety risks; (ii) consequently, theCompany had overstated the drug's approval prospectus and/orcommercial viability; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,Scynexis's public statements were materially false and misleadingat all relevant times.

On March 2, 2017, post-market, Scynexis issued a press release,attached as Exhibit 99.1 on Form 8-K, entitled "Scynexis delaysinitiation of new clinical studies using the IV formulation ofSCY-078 at FDA's request," announcing the FDA's clinical hold onclinical trials for the intravenous formulation of the Company'slead product candidate SCY-078. The Company stated that "[t]heclinical hold decision was issued by the FDA following a review ofthree mild-to-moderate thrombotic events in healthy volunteersreceiving the IV formulation of SCY-078 at the highest doses andhighest concentrations in a Phase 1 study." On this news,Scynexis's share price fell $0.57, or 17.43%, to close at $2.70 onMarch 3, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

* All of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a background check report at any time during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date of the order granting class certification; and

* All of Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants for employment in California who applied for a job with Defendants and for whom Defendants obtained a background check report at any time during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date of the order granting class certification.

Ms. Burnthorne-Martinez further moves for an order appointingSetareh Law Group as class counsel.

In her complaint, Ms. Burnthorne-Martinez alleges that Sephoraperforms intrusive background checks on potential employeesdespite the fact that the authorization and disclosure formsSephora uses to obtain authorization plainly do not comply withfederal law. Specifically, she contends, the Fair CreditReporting Act requires that the disclosure of a background checkbe "clear and conspicuous" and that it be disclosed in astandalone document that "consists solely of the disclosure."

The Court will commence a hearing on April 4, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,to consider the Motion.

Badger has visited Defendant's location at 6701 Frankstown Ave.,Pittsburgh, PA, where she experienced unnecessary difficulty andrisk due to excessive slopes and lack of appropriate signage inDefendant's parking facilities. Plaintiff has a mobilitydisability and is limited in the major life activity of walking,which has caused her to be dependent upon a wheelchair formobility.

This Settlement Class is conditionally certified for settlementpurposes only:

Persons who had a Covered Loss where the claim was paid at less than the limit of liability (accounting for deductible), and where Shelter or its Affiliate made an indemnification payment that included a deduction for estimated depreciation of labor.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Persons who received indemnification payment(s) for full replacement cost; (2) Persons who received indemnification payment(s) in the full amount of limit of liability shown on the declarations page; (3) Shelter and its Affiliate, officers and directors; (4) Members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (5) Class Counsel.

"Covered Loss" means a first party insurance claim for physical damage that occurred during the Class Period on Arkansas homeowners insurance policy forms HO-3 (03 04); HO-3 (01 07); HO-5 (B-826); HO-6 (03 04); HO-6 (01 07); B-450.3; MHO (I-31.4) issued by Shelter or its Affiliate, that resulted in an indemnity payment by Shelter or its Affiliate under Coverage A or B.

"Affiliate" means Shelter General Insurance Company.

"Class Period" means the period of December 11, 2008 through December 15, 2015.

Plaintiffs Michael Goodner and Robbie Goodner are preliminarilyappointed as representatives of the Settlement Class, and theCourt preliminarily finds that these attorneys for Plaintiffssatisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure, and appoints such as counsel for theSettlement Class:

If final approval of the Proposed Settlement is not granted, thisOrder, including the description of the Settlement Class and thepreliminary appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs and ClassCounsel, will be automatically vacated, Judge Hickey said.

Kurtzman Carson Consultants will serve as the third-partyadministrator of the Settlement in accordance with terms of theStipulation.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing to consider thefairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed Settlementon May 25, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

Shore is in the business of providing labor and human resourcesservices for companies in the oil and gas industry, marineconstruction and repair industry, and other industrial fieldswhere Plaintiff was employed as a rigger.

SLATER & GORDON: Legal Team Raises Conflict of Interest Concerns----------------------------------------------------------------Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports thatthe $100 million legal battle over the share-price collapse oflisted law firm Slater and Gordon has taken a bitter twist over anallegation of a serious conflict of interest.

Slater and Gordon faces a class action led by its No.1 rival,Maurice Blackburn, after the collapse of its share price lastyear.

In court on March 6, Slater and Gordon's legal team flaggedconcerns that Maurice Blackburn might have a conflict of interestrepresenting shareholders in a case against its biggestcompetitor.

The accusation came as lawyers for debt-strapped Slater and Gordonalso revealed that it would be four weeks until they could mediatewith Maurice Blackburn with the possibility a settlement could bereached after that time.

Maurice Blackburn launched the class action on behalf of aggrievedshareholders in the group last year. Slater and Gordon is infinancial strife after its disastrous acquisition of UK firmQuindell led to $1 billion-plus writedowns, a string of financiallosses and a major investigation by the Australian Securities andInvestment Commission.

The spur for the conflict-of-interest allegation was a move byMaurice Blackburn to apply to the Federal Court for details onSlater and Gordon's insurance policies and documents relating tothe debt-strapped law firm's rescue deal with its bankers.

Its application came after Fairfax Media revealed a rescue packagefor the debt-strapped law firm will use a legal precedent to ring-fence the company's assets from secondary creditors includingclass action claimants.

Fairfax Media also revealed Slater and Gordon is expected to reachan in-principle agreement with its bankers for a debt-for-equityswap by March 17.

Lawyer for Slater and Gordon, Leon Zwier of Arnold Bloch Leibler,said he had concerns about Maurice Blackburn representingshareholders and that should also be discussed in the mediationtalks.

"It's a serious issue," Mr Zwier told the court.

"It's like asking Channel Seven to play a role in thereconstruction in Channel Nine."

Mr Zwier added that requests to access documents relating toSlater and Gordon's insurance and the deal it was working on withits bankers Westpac, National Australia Bank, Barclays and RoyalBank of Scotland, were premature given the financial state of thecompany.

"If the debt is trading where the debt is said to be trading,there is a $400 million deficiency in the senior debt," Mr Zwiersaid, referring to speculation debt in the group could be onsoldfor less than 30??? in the dollar.

"Now they [Maurice Blackburn] have no economic rights in thescheme whatsoever. Their rights would be confined under Gwaliaamendments to no more than the proceeds of the insurance whateverthey are. Whether that is nothing, $10m or $100m it makes nodifference."

William Edwards, for Maurice Blackburn, told the court he wassurprised to learn of Slater and Gordon's concerns aboutrepresentation.

"There is no evidentiary basis for this claim to be made. Thisfirm acted as a significant advisor to Slater and Gordon in thecapital raising in 2015," Mr Edwards said.

Justice John Middleton declined to make any ruling regardingrepresentation, indicating he did not see it as a key issue.

"It's an interesting point but it's not like a trade competitor.It's not quite the same situation," Justice Middleton said.

Mr Zwier said he could not confirm that March 17 was the dealdate, but asked Justice Middleton to move the next court date fromMarch 17 to March 20 just in case a deal was done on that day asspeculated by the press.

Guaman was hired by Defendants to work as a sous chef forDefendants' restaurant, Serafina 61st Street while Sanchez washired as a cook at Serafina Brasserie Cognac, located at 1740Broadway, New York, NY 10019.

Southampton, LLC operates as Jeu Lan Club, a restaurant inSouthampton, New York where Tcaciuc worked as a waiter. Defendantsallegedly did not provide wage notices and wage statements, thusfailing to account Plaintiff's actual work hours.

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Appeals Earthquake Class Action Ruling---------------------------------------------------------Lorraine MacDonald, Esq. -- lorraine@jonesandco.nz -- of Jones &Co., in an article for International Law Office, reports that onSeptember 4 2010 a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck the Canterburyregion of New Zealand and a more lethal magnitude 6.3 aftershockquake killed 185 people when it struck on February 22 2011. Bothcaused widespread property damage. Six and seven years later,there are many thousands of unresolved property claims.

A recent High Court judgment -- Southern Response UnresolvedClaims Group v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd ([2016]NZHC 3105) -- has surprised some observers by allowing arepresentative action of homeowners to proceed against agovernment-owned earthquake insurer. The judgment is of notebecause it followed an earlier refusal by the same court to givethe group leave to proceed. The second hearing was also a finelybalanced matter. The insurer has filed an appeal.

When this earthquake-related class action is compared withsecurities or product liability class actions or the recent bankfees action in New Zealand and Australia, the obvious difficultyfor the claimants is that their houses will be different, thephysical damage will be different and their resulting claims willbe different. However, this may not be a bar to a successfulclass action if the cause of the alleged loss can be imputed tothe defendant treating each claim under the same policy in asimilar and identifiable way.

The first High Court judge in charge of the specially constitutedEarthquake List, Justice Miller, remarked in a paper that "We [theHigh Court in the Earthquake List] hope that we would see classactions" and "The Courts recognise that class actions aresometimes needed if a large group of people sharing the sameinterest are to secure access to justice".

The case offers the opportunity to compare the unsuccessful andsuccessful applications and briefly survey the landscape of suchactions.

Class actions in New Zealand

There is no class action legislation in New Zealand. A bill is inthe pipeline, but has been languishing there since the draft ClassActions Bill and Rules was sent for consultation in 2008. A finaldraft was sent to the secretary for justice in 2009, but has notbeen a legislative priority, despite the issue of lack of accessto justice in the civil courts being regularly aired, including bythe chief justice of the High Court.(2)

Other reasons why this type of action is still relatively rare inNew Zealand -- at least relative to similar common lawjurisdictions -- might be the small population, the statutory baron personal injury litigation since the advent of the no-faultaccident compensation system and the low number of awards ofexemplary or punitive damages by the New Zealand courts (which,when awarded, are modest).

It is not because the courts have set the threshold of whatconstitutes a common interest or claim particularly high. Theexpressed intention of the courts -- including the Supreme Court-- is to provide for a flexible regime for representative actionsto take the place of multiple cases, consistent with the "just,speedy and inexpensive determination" of proceedings.

Rule 4.24 of the High Court Rules allows such claims to proceedwhere there is "the same interest in the subject matter of aproceeding". Leave is not mandatory, but in reality mostdefendants seek a declaration that the case not proceed as a classaction. The courts have overlaid non-onerous strictures onto Rule4.24 that no defendant be deprived of a defence that would havebeen available to defend a claim brought by an individual and noone within a class should be able to succeed if he or she wouldnot have been able to bring an individual claim.

First High Court decision

In Southern Response Unresolved Claims Group Suing By ItsRepresentative Cameron James Preston v Southern ResponseEarthquake Services Limited ([2016] NZHC 245, February 24 2016) aclaim was brought under two heads: breach of policy which arosefrom issues relating to the interpretation and application of theinsurance policy and breach of process/the duty of good faith.Various actions of Southern Response were pleaded in support ofthe claim -- for example:

-- conditions in the 'decision packs' which were sent topolicyholders were additional to and inconsistent with the termsof the original policy;

-- the rebuilds were done by the insurer's single nominatedcontractor, with the result that rebuilds were being delayed bymany years; and

-- the building rates used by Southern Response were calculatedusing bulk discounts and thus misrepresented the true cost of eachrebuild within the insurer's design repair/rebuild analysis.

Notably, by the time of the second hearing, Southern Responsesubmitted that it was no longer using bulk costings and was usingmarket rates.

Justice Mander declined the claim, stating:

"[A] representative proceeding cannot be expected to manage such awide range of different issues of fact and law as proposed in thepresent case in the absence of the identification of the core orpredominant and overriding question or questions in disputebetween the parties which is common to the Group's membership andwill materially advance each of the members' claims."

In deciding that the threshold of common interest had not beenreached, Mander expressly left the door open for a second chanceby declining leave to proceed without prejudice to the groupfiling an amended statement of claim. He foresaw the possibilityof an initial litigated group claim being decided before separateclaims, perhaps as sub-groups being dealt with afterwards:

"I also observe the possibility of dialogue between the parties toidentify appropriate sub-groupings of members' claims according toagreed heads of issues relating to the interpretation andapplication of the policy. This may provide the basis for thedetermination of an initial issue or issues likely to advance theresolution of members of that sub-group's claims before proceedingto the individual circumstances of a member's case."

Second High Court decision

Although more detail was provided in the amended statement ofclaim, there was not a wholesale change to the way that the claimwas pleaded. Rather, many of the same specific behaviours of theinsurer were pleaded as well as some new ones; but this time theywere characterised as being not merely approaches taken to theclaims, but part of a deliberate and designed "strategy"comprising different techniques to delay, deter and ultimatelyreduce the amounts payable on claims.

Justice Gendall was satisfied that the allegation of a strategyemployed by the insurer provided the group a common "spine" of thegeneral damages claim that allowed for a representative action:

"I accept that the common interest pleaded by the plaintiffs nowthat Southern Response engaged in a deliberate strategy designedto deceive policyholders and delay claims with a view to reducingthe financial liability that Southern Response might have to itspolicyholders is a proper one for a 4.24 representative action . .. A reasonable argument exists, as I see it that it is ineveryone's interests, including the plaintiffs' group, otherparties, and indeed Southern Response, to have this matterproperly ventilated and determined before the Court."

The litigation will presumably focus on how and whether such a"strategy" employed by Southern Response was designed to causepeople to accept lower settlements than they were entitled to. Thestrategy comprises the "litigation" claim with the individualclaims of the insureds being linked but able to be dealt with,perhaps by way of case management after the group litigation issuewas decided. It remains to be seen how those individual claimswould be managed.

Funding and expansion of claim

At the time of the first High Court judgment, there were 46claimants. By the time of the second judgment, the number was 41and the original named representatives (Prestons) were among thosewho had settled since the first judgment. The class now numbers36. However, the group was given opt-in time to advertise and tryto bring in more policyholders.

A discovery direction sought by the group plaintiffs -- forSouthern Response to hand over details of its policyholders withoutstanding claims -- was declined as potentially being a breachof confidentiality. A three-month opt-in date was directed fromthe time that the solicitors for the plaintiff group cancommunicate with the unresolved Southern response claimants.

The litigation funding agreement can be enquired into by a courtin every case where leave for a representative action is sought.This agreement has unusual features: along with the common 'nowin, no fee' arrangement which attracts those who cannot fundlitigation, the funders have contracted to accept a significantlysmaller percentage than normal if the action succeeds, becausethere is no dispute that there is some insurer liability -- thequestion is how much. There is also a 'no worse off' fundingclause so that fees will be taken only if a policyholder ends upwith more than the insurer has already offered through its designrepair/rebuild analysis.

Comment

Southern Response was established for the sole purpose of settlingclaims of domestic policyholders after the insurer AMI could notmeet its liabilities. The resultant cash bail-out to the tune ofNZ$500 million was accompanied by a restructuring of AMI and itsearthquake liabilities being transferred to Southern Response, agovernment-owned entity. This is the first such class actionsince the earthquake, apart from an action against the government-owned earthquake commission which provides a capped NZ$100,000payment to all insured homes. The government ownership is perhapsless relevant to the observer than the notion that such run-offclaim entities may have a different incentive than ongoingconcerns, in that renewing, increasing or attracting customers isnot on the agenda. This was part of the group plaintiff'ssubmission at the second hearing.

After the first ruling, insurance law expert Rob Merkin toldInsurance Business that he would have been amazed if the court hadfound that there was a basis for a representative action. "Eachclaim depends on its own facts, relating to policy wording and thetype of damage," he was quoted as saying. He further noted:

"It is distressing that some claims have taken so long to beresolved, but the correct response is to co-operate with insurers,who have no interest in depriving policyholders of theirentitlements, rather than to surrender significant parts of theirclaims to funding organisations who care only about profit andwhose intervention can only delay the settlement process by themaking of unrealistically large claims."

Southern Response also voiced these concerns for its policyholders-- that the claims would be further delayed and the policyholderswould be out of pocket. It remains to be seen whether the Courtof Appeal is similarly concerned and whether any success willencourage other class actions either arising from Christchurch orfrom the recent earthquake affecting both the small town ofKaikoura and the capital city, Wellington.

Style Citi is a female fashion store owned by Jaime Yoo and Sun OkYoo located at 247 W. 38th Street, Ste. 404, New York, New York10004 where Aguilar was employed as a clothier. Defendantsallegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hoursworked, thus failing to pay Plaintiff Aguilar for all hours heworked.

SUBWAY: Faces Class Action Over Meat in Chicken Sandwiches----------------------------------------------------------Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reportsthat Subway is now facing a prospective class action lawsuit overallegations that its chicken might not actually be chicken.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District ofConnecticut on March 3 comes on the heels of a news report onCanadian Broadcasting Corp.'s "Marketplace" that found about 53.6percent of the meat in Subway's roasted chicken sandwiches hasactual chicken DNA. Subway's sweet onion chicken teriyakisandwich fared worse, with just 42.8 percent coming back aschicken.

Of the fast-food eateries tested, Subway's samples were the onlyones that contained enough plant DNA to allow the lab to identifysoy species, according to the lawsuit.

The 22-page lawsuit alleges the Milford-based chain "spends asignificant amount of money to convey deceptive messages toconsumers throughout the United States." There are more than44,000 Subway restaurants located throughout the world.

The suit was filed on behalf of Stamford resident Craig Moskowitz,who claimed he's a frequent Subway consumer.Mr. Moskowitz has also filed several unrelated class action suitsin recent years.

Subway had not assigned an attorney to the case as of March 6, andno one from the company was available for comment.

Subway has fired back against the report on social media and itswebsite, claiming its own testing showed 99 percent of its chickenis actual chicken while less than 1 percent is soy.

Soy is added to keep products moist and flavorful, according toSubway.

Subway and scientists have also raised concerns about themethodology used in the underlying report.

"[The report] used factually incorrect data to suggest the chickenSubway serves might not be all chicken," according to a statementon Subway's website. "The claims made in the story are false andmisleading. We use only chicken -- with added marinade, spicesand seasoning. Producing high-quality food for our customers isour highest priority."

Mr. Moskowitz's attorney, Sergei Lemberg, told the Connecticut LawTribune on March 6 that his law firm has commissioned its ownstudy to see how much chicken is actually in Subway's products.

"We'll wait for the results and for the discovery process to shedlight on whether this chicken is or is not completely chicken,"said Mr. Lemberg, who is the principal owner of Wilton-basedLemberg Law.

The results of that study could "take a couple of months,"Mr. Lemberg added. "We are looking forward to delving into thenitty gritty of this interesting case that is important toconsumers."

The lawsuit states it's not clear how many people could be partyto the class action, noting it could exceed "hundreds ofthousands, if not millions of persons."

It's also unclear what would be needed to join the lawsuit.

"A [Subway] receipt is helpful, but I don't know at this point ifyou just need a receipt," Mr. Lemberg said. "This all has to behashed out in the course of discovery."

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages.

Mr. Moskowitz is also a plaintiff in a November lawsuit thataccuses supermarket chain Fairway of sending unauthorized textmessages to his cellphone in violation of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act.

UnitedHealth commenced a tender offer to purchase all of theoutstanding shares of Surgical Care common stock for considerationof $2.3 billion. Plaintiff alleges that the transaction willunlawfully divest Surgical Care's public stockholders of theCompany's assets without fully disclosing underlying the financialvaluation analyses and information in order to make a fullyinformed decision whether to tender their shares in favor of thedeal.

TACOLICIOUS: Settles Former Employees' Wage Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Jay Barmann, writing for sfist.com, reports that Tacolicious, thegrowing taco enterprise from founder Joe Hargrave that now hasfive Bay Area locations including three in SF, is opting to settleout of court a lawsuit originally brought by two former line cooksalleging that they were denied overtime and legally mandated mealbreaks, and had improper deductions from their paychecks. As theChronicle reports, the lawsuit, which became a class action,covers all current and former employees who worked at one of thelocations between from August 14, 2010 and July 11, 2016.

The suit was brought by the cooks in 2015, with both claiming thatthey were denied overtime pay and were also not paid out for theirovertime when they both chose to quit the restaurant. In courtdocuments, Tacolicious says it "is not liable for any of theclaims" brought by the former employees, though Mr. Hargraveadmits to the Chronicle, "Our loose record keeping at thebeginning opened us up to the lawsuit which we recently settled,"and he says "we've had to learn on the job" about that recordkeeping since the business rapidly expanded from its FerryBuilding food stand in 2009, taking over Mr. Hargrave's formerrestaurant Laiola on Chestnut Street, and soon opening on ValenciaStreet thereafter.

Mr. Hargrave tells Eater, "We chose to settle because if we choseto fight it, we'd go out of business. There's nothing we can doabout it. So it is what it is, but things aren't all they appear."

Such wage theft cases have become a bit popular of late, withlocal mini-chain Burma Superstar facing a similar suit, andnewcomer Babu Ji recently announcing the closure of their New Yorkrestaurant due to such a lawsuit.

Mr. Hargrave derisively points to the law firm that representedthe cooks, who are taking a 30 percent cut out of the settlement,or $270,000 -- which he says is 30 times what the average employeewill receive, or approximately $9,000 apiece.

The settlement will still need to be approved in San FranciscoSuperior Court, and a hearing is scheduled for March 15.

In addition to running the Tacolicious chain, which now haslocations in Palo Alto and San Jose, Mr. Hargrave also co-owns BarSan Pancho and the tequila bar Mosto.

TARGET CORP: Faces Meal, Rest Break Class Action in California--------------------------------------------------------------Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a former TargetCorp. employee has hit the retail giant with a putative classaction in California state court, accusing the company of adoptingpolicies that prevent Golden State workers from taking legallymandated meal and rest breaks.

Mr. Halley launched the putative class action after he worked as aTarget prevention specialist from May 2015 to December 2016,during which he claims he was forced to stay at the store, carry aradio with him and respond to calls during his meal and restbreaks.

The suit alleges other Target employees were also ordered toperform similar tasks during their breaks and were effectivelydenied legally mandated breaks.

The suit seeks restitution, unpaid wages plus penalties andattorney's fees and costs, and asks the court to certify a "rest-break" class of California Target workers who worked 3.5 hours ormore during any shift since March 6, 2013.

The suit also seeks to certify three subclasses of Targetemployees who worked in the company's California loss preventiondepartment. The subclasses include a class of employees whoworked for five hours or more during any shift, a class who workedfor 3.5 hours or more during any shift, and a class who worked anyamount of hours in the department.

Mr. Halley argues in the suit that there could be possiblythousands of class members, and therefore class certification iswarranted in this case. If the class members are forced tolitigate their claims individually, Target would have an"unconscionable advantage" with their "vastly superior financialand legal resources," the suit said.

Mr. Halley's counsel declined to comment on March 8, andrepresentatives for Target didn't immediately respond on March 8to requests for comment.

Mr. Halley is represented by Larry W. Lee --lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- of Diversity Law Group PC, Edward W.Choi of the Law Offices of Choi & Associates, and Thomas M. Lee ofthe Lee Offices APLC.

Counsel for Target was not immediately available on March 8.

The case is Corbin Halley v. Target Corp., case number BC653367,in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of LosAngeles.

A. Hiring Class: All individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who sought a position with Tata in the United States and were not hired between April 14, 2011 and the date of class certification.

B. Termination Class: All individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who were employed by Tata in the United States, were placed in an unallocated status and were terminated between April 14, 2011 and the date of class certification.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendantengages in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminationagainst non-South Asians and non-Indians in hiring and employmentdecisions across the United States in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing them asrepresentatives of the classes, and appointing their counsel ascounsel for the class.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 20, 2017, 2:00 p.m., toconsider the Motion.

TAX GROUP CENTER: Van Elzen Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls-----------------------------------------------------------------David Van Elzen and Ronald Rodriguez, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tax Group Center,Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01105,(N.D. Cal., March 3, 2017), seeks an injunction requiringDefendant to cease all unsolicited pre-recorded calling activitieswithout obtaining recipient's prior express written consent toreceive calls made with such equipment, prohibiting Defendant fromcontracting with any third-party for same and prohibitingDefendant from conducting any future telemarketing activitiesuntil it has established an internal Do Not Call List as requiredby the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reasonable attorneys'fees and costs and such other and further relief.

Tax Group is a company that specializes in providing debt reliefsolutions for consumers who are significantly indebted to theInternal Revenue Service and promotes its services through a wide-scale telemarketing campaign.

Plaintiff owed the Defendant a mortgage debt. On December 17, 2012Bakos filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding before the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court. Bakos was granted a discharge of his inpersonam liability for debts, including any debt owed to TD BankNA. Despite this, TD Bank NA accessed Bakos's personal informationafter the discharge by pulling or obtaining a consumer report froma consumer reporting agency on more than one occasion after hisdischarge without his authority.

Jeffers and Gibson each own a 2009 Toyota Camry. According to thecomplaint, Toyota designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed,and sold certain automobiles with defective dashboards that meltor degrade upon prolonged exposure to the sun that don't manifestwithin until after the expiration of the warranty coverage.

Toyota is a major automotive manufacturer with dealershipsthroughout the United States, including South Carolina. ToyotaMotor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. is in thebusiness of designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, andselling products to consumers in the state of South Carolina andthroughout the United States.

TRANSPERFECT: Faces Data Theft Class Action in New York-------------------------------------------------------Marion Marking, writing for Slator, reports that just as co-CEOPhil Shawe resorted to a USD100,000 legal scholarship competitionin a last ditch effort to stave off the forced sale ofTransPerfect, a former employee filed a class action lawsuitagainst the New York-based language service provider (LSP).

The class action suit was filed in the Southern District ofNew York by Jesse Sackin, who, based on his LinkedIn profile,works at e-discovery provider Catalyst Repository Systems.Mr. Sackin was an Account Executive at TransPerfect from September2013 to December 2015.

The ex-TransPerfect employee was among thousands of current andformer staff whose W-2 information was stolen in January 2017: Amember of the LSP's accounting department fell prey to a phishingscam and forwarded the W-2 data to cybercriminals. The dataincluded names, addresses, salaries, as well as bank account andSocial Security numbers.

Mr. Sackin said the stolen information was of great value tocybercriminals and accused TransPerfect of failing to take thenecessary precautions to safeguard employee information fromunauthorized disclosure. The lawsuit pointed out the phishingscam is a well known scheme. Furthermore, Mr. Sackin criticizedthe Experian identity theft protection service that TransPerfectoffered affected employees, calling it inadequate.

A number of large companies have fallen victim to the same scam,some of them also facing class action lawsuits. Sources withinTransPerfect stressed that the data theft was not a hack but dueto human error. As a major provider of language services to lawfirms, financial institutions, and other industries where datasecurity is paramount, TransPerfect has to avoid even theslightest perception that client data was or is at risk.

Certain parties at TransPerfect are trying to pin the blame forthe foul-up on bankruptcy consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal; which,according to Delaware Online and sources within TransPerfect,oversees the accounting department from where the W-2 data wassent.

Alvarez & Marsal was tasked with running certain financial andoperational services by custodian Robert Pincus, who was appointedby the court to sell TransPerfect in order to break the deadlockbetween the LSP's two warring CEOs.

Slator reached out to a TransPerfect spokesperson for comment, buthas not received a response as of press time.

* * *

In February, a former employee of global translations company,TransPerfect who is also a current member of Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware, filed a class action lawsuit in New York afterlearning that their personal identifying information (PII) hadbeen disclosed to cyber-criminals, jeopardizing their identitiesfor the rest of their lives and leaving them questioning thecompetence and viability of the court custodian to run thethriving private business. By transferring power over theAccounting and Payroll departments of TransPerfect to Joel Mostromof consulting firm Alvarez and Marsal, away from TransPerfect'sCFO and COO each with over a decade worth of experience at thecompany, Court Custodian Bob Pincus appointed highly-paidconsultants who were unfamiliar with TransPerfect operations, andfailed to engage in training and take other precautions necessaryto prevent the data breach.

The end result is that countless employees had personalinformation stolen -- a serious and permanent loss to their ownsecurity and well-being. There is a growing pattern with thiscase that the consultants and lawyers continue to rewardthemselves at the cost of thousands of employees.

"For over a year, TransPerfect employees have warned that thiscourt-appointed custodian with unlimited power to interfere wouldthreaten the livelihood of the company and its employees," saidChris Coffey, campaign manager for Citizens for a Pro-BusinessDelaware (CPBD), the advocacy group supporting TransPerfectemployees and Delaware's incorporation-driven economy and its pro-business reputation. They formed in April 2016 to focus onraising awareness among Delaware residents, elected officials, andother stakeholders about the unprecedented TransPerfect case, inwhich a court has seized control of private company and empower aCustodian to auction the firm off the highest bidder.

"Now, in light of the worst data incident in the company'shistory, we are finally seeing cold hard proof that the Custodianand the Court put profits for friends and cronies over the well-being of the company and the employees. By cutting corners,hiring underqualified colleagues and charging whopping $1400 perhour for custodial costs instead of putting TransPerfect employeesfirst, Custodian Pincus is demonstrating flagrant negligence andviolating the rights of TransPerfect employees. We also appeal toJudge Bouchard to take a look at their hourly rates. They are outof whack with any other custodian in the state. This case isturning into a boondoggle" Mr. Coffey added.

Presumably looking to steal the identities of employees, cyber-criminals posing as TransPerfect's CFO requested 2015 W-2 form taxinformation and payroll information for the period ending inJanuary 2015. The cyber-criminals requested names, direct depositbank account numbers, routing numbers, and Social Security numbersfor some thousands of current and past employees. Based onsimilar cases, the damages suffered by TransPerfect current andformer employees could be claimed to exceed $48 million.

TransPerfect employees are first and foremost jolted by themassive data breach that put their identity in risk for the restof their lives. But they are also questioning the growing waste ofthe custodian, who makes $1,400 an hour, far exceeding the typical$400 per hour for custodians.

The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered an appointed custodian tosell TransPerfect after an internal dispute between company ownersearlier last year. Defendant TransPerfect Global, Inc. is acorporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware withits principal place of business in New York, New York.TransPerfect employs over 4,000 people around the world.

This recent lawsuit is only the tip of the iceberg. TransPerfectemployees have been battling what they see as interference intheir company for the past year -- in the courts, in the statehouse and out in the community. To date, hundreds of TransPerfectemployees have banded together to fight for their jobs by formingCPBD. The group has proposed legislation that would amendDelaware law to require a three-year waiting period before forcingthe sale of a solvent company.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Student May Opt Out of Settlement----------------------------------------------------------Steve Edermarch, writing for The New York Times, reports thatPresident Trump's postelection agreement to pay $25 millionappeared to settle the fraud claims arising from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University. But a former studentis now asking to opt out of the settlement, a move that, ifpermitted, could put the deal in jeopardy.

Lawyers for the student, Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,on March 6 asked a federal judge in San Diego to reject thesettlement unless former students are given an opportunity to beexcluded from the deal so they can sue Mr. Trump individually.

If the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, decides that Ms. Simpson andpotentially others should have that chance, legal experts say itcould disrupt the settlement because Mr. Trump and his lawyers sawthe deal as a way to resolve all of the claims, once and for all,to avoid a trial and distractions to his presidency.

"If even one person could opt out of the settlement and force atrial, that might, in fact, crater the deal," said Shaun Martin, aprofessor at the University of San Diego School of Law. "I'm sureJudge Curiel will be aware of that."

The agreement, announced in November, appeared to resolve years ofhotly contested litigation, including two federal class-actioncases in San Diego and a separate suit by Eric T. Schneiderman,the New York attorney general. Students maintained that they werecheated out of tuition through high-pressure sales tactics andmisleading claims about what they would learn. At one point duringthe contentious case, Mr. Trump questioned Judge Curiel'simpartiality based on his Mexican heritage.

Mr. Trump, who has rejected the claims and did not acknowledgefault in the settlement, posted on Twitter after the settlementannouncement that he "did not have the time to go through a longbut winning trial on Trump U."

Patrick Coughlin, a lawyer representing the class-actionplaintiffs, said that it was a "terrific settlement" and that theobjection seemed "politically motivated." He said he feared thatthe objection could result in delays for students who have waitedyears to get money back. "She could have excluded herself beforeand pursued her own litigation," he said. "That time passed."

Lawyers for Mr. Trump did not respond to messages seeking comment.

March 6 was the deadline for students to file claims toparticipate in the settlement, or object to it -- as in the caseof Ms. Simpson.

Her lawyers argue that a notice sent to students about the class-action lawsuits in 2015 left the impression that they could laterrequest to be excluded from a settlement, but that opportunity wasnot afforded to them in the agreement.

"There was precious little reason to exercise the right to opt outat that juncture" in 2015, wrote one of Ms. Simpson's lawyers,Gary Friedman of New York, in the objection filed on March 6."The case was barreling toward trial, by all accounts."

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School ofLaw, said that Judge Curiel would probably give the objectionserious consideration, but that he would have to weigh it against"substantial pressure to hold the deal together."

"A lot of work has gone into this, and people are generallysatisfied all around," Mr. Tobias said.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have said that they would waive their fees andthat they expected roughly 7,000 former students to recover halfto all of what they spent on courses.

If they are allowed, it is not clear how many former students mayseek to opt out.

In 2010, Ms. Simpson -- a lawyer who spoke out about her TrumpUniversity experience during last year's campaign -- paid $1,495for a three-day seminar, in which she said instructors pressuredher to sign up for the $35,000 "Gold Elite" program under thepremise that she would have access to the "resources of Mr. Trumpand his real estate organization," she wrote in a sworn statement.She split the fee with another student, spending about $19,000 intotal, Mr. Friedman said.

But she soon grew dissatisfied when promises went unfulfilled. Shewrote, "The Gold Elite program was a scam."

all former, current, and future employees who signed (or sign) dues check-off authorizations with United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 876 ("Local 876" of "Union") that contain any window period that restricts the dates on which employees can notify the Union of their revocation and/or require that employees communicate their revocation to Local 876 solely via certified mail.

The class includes everyone, who comes within the class definitionat any time from June 19, 2016, to the conclusion of the action.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court certify theclass or subclasses that it deems appropriate. They also ask tobe named as Class Representatives, and to appoint Amanda K.Freeman, Esq., William L. Messenger, Esq., and Glenn M. Taubman,Esq., as class counsel.

UNITED STATES: Sued for Denying Military Disability Benefits------------------------------------------------------------Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that aclass action suit has been filed against the United Statesmilitary, alleging that many servicemen and women are being deniedfull disability benefits.

Retired Marine Corporal Simon Soto claims that members of the U.S.Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard are beingdenied the full amount of their retroactive Combat-Related SpecialCompensation (CRSC).

Denied benefits

Mr. Soto performed military duties in two tours of Iraq in amortuary affairs unit, processing the remains of deceasedsoldiers. He claims that the experiences, which took place overthe course of 10 years of service, were often very disturbing andleft him with vivid nightmares and psychological damage. Hedescribes graphic scenes of bagging remains that had been blown upand dismembered beyond recognition.

After receiving seven medals and other honors with the Marines, heretired from active duty in April 2006 and was found by theDepartment of Veterans Affairs to be 100% disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder, which made him eligible to receivedisability payments under CRSC.

However, Mr. Soto put off receiving his benefits until June 2016,at which time he was told that he no longer qualified for the fullamount of retroactive compensation. The suit states that the Navyoffice would only pay the ex-servicemen for six of the eight and ahalf years he had been entitled to after retiring.Misinterpretation

The suit alleges that the military is misreading the CRSC'sretroactive payment cap clause to the detriment of Mr. Soto andothers like him.

It states that the six-year limit is imposed for survivorbenefits, travel costs, payments for unused leave, and retirementpay -- but not for combat-related special compensation, such asthe disability compensation that Soto is entitled to. As a result,Soto claims that he is eligible for eight and half years ofretroactive payments instead of six.

The suit estimates that nearly 89,000 military retirees are alsobeing shortchanged by the cap. It is seeking class certificationand damages of up to $10,000 per affected member. The case isbeing handled by Tracy LeRoy of Sidley Austin LLP's Houston,Texas, office.What to do

UNITED STATES: Veterans Win Agent Orange Exposure Cases-------------------------------------------------------Matthew M. Burke and Chiyomi Sumida, writing for Stars andStripes, report that there have long been rumors that Agent Orangewas stored or used on Okinawa, but no one has been able to findproof.

Now two servicemembers who served on the Japanese island duringthe Vietnam War era have won court cases claiming they developedailments from exposure to the toxic defoliant.

Judges in the separate lawsuits cited specific diseases that havebeen linked to Agent Orange and a lack of proof that the chemicalcompound wasn't on Okinawa, based on a two-year gap in records andother evidence.

The judges were careful to limit their rulings to the specificcases, likely to avoid opening the door for hundreds of formerservicemembers to seek class-action status for physical problemsthat may be linked to Agent Orange.

Pentagon officials referred requests for comment to the Departmentof Veterans Affairs, which declined to answer questions or discusshow many similar cases there have been in recent years.

Each case is heard on its own merits, the agency said in astatement to Stars and Stripes.

"VA can grant a claim and award disability compensation if thereis evidence of a current disability, an in-service exposure, and amedical nexus or link between the in-service exposure and thesubsequent development of the illness," the statement said. "VAhas no credible evidence of Agent Orange use, storage, testing, ortransportation in Okinawa, and thus no evidence to support claimsof exposure to Agent Orange during military service in Okinawa."

According to the Complaint, the front packaging of this productindicates that it contains "naturally sourced sunscreeningredients" despite it containing synthetic and potentiallyharmful phenoxyethanol, ethylhexylglycerin and butyloctylsalicylate. Food and Drug Administration warned thatphenoxyethanol can depress the central nervous system and maycause vomiting and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration ininfants. Ethylhexylglycerin is an eye irritant and may causedermatitis when used on people with sensitive skin.

On January 7, 2017, VCA's Board of Directors entered into a mergerdeal with Mars where the shareholders of VCA will receive $93.00in cash for each share of VCA common stock.

The merger deal allegedly locked the transactions, eliminating allpossibilities of other offers from prospective buyers.

VCA is a provider of pet health care services in the countrydelivered through nearly 800 small animal veterinary hospitals inthe U.S. and Canada with a preeminent nationwide clinicallaboratory system that services almost all of North America.Robert L. Antin, John M. Baumer, John B. Chickering, Jr., JohnHeil and Frank Reddick sit in the board.

VCA INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 7 disclosed that it has filed aclass action complaint in the United States District Court for theCentral District of California on behalf of holders of VCA Inc.("VCA") (NASDAQ:WOOF) common stock in connection with the proposedacquisition of VCA by MMI Holdings, Inc., Venice Merger Sub Inc.,and Mars, Incorporated (collectively, "Mars") announced on January9, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which allegesviolations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against VCA, itsBoard of Directors (the "Board"), and Mars, is captioned Hight v.VCA Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00289 (C.D. Cal.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questionsconcerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contactplaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra atRigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/vca-inc-woof/.

On January 7, 2017, VCA entered into an agreement and plan ofmerger (the "Merger Agreement") with Mars. Pursuant to the MergerAgreement, VCA shareholders will receive $93.00 per share in cashin a transaction valued at approximately $9.1 billion (the"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt tosecure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxystatement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2017. The ProxyStatement, which recommends that VCA stockholders vote in favor ofthe Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary toenable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to voteon the Proposed Transaction, including material information withrespect to VCA's financial projections and the opinions andanalyses of VCA's financial advisor. The Complaint seeksinjunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holdersof VCA common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than May 8, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representativeparty acting on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Courtto serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or maychoose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

In or around April 2016, Defendants merged. Plaintiff allegesVerizon Communications, Inc. and Frontier Communications, Inc.,telecom companies, of charging interest and late fees they did notowe as well as inexplicable cancellation fees as a part of therollover.

VIZIO INC: Must Face Smart Interactivity Feature Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Karl Bode, writing for techdirt, reports that so if you hadn'tbeen paying attention, most of the "smart" products you buy areanything but intelligent when it comes to your privacy andsecurity. Whether it's your refrigerator leaking your gmailcredentials or your new webcam being hacked in minutes for use inmassive new DDoS attacks, the so-called "smart" home is actuallyquite idiotic. So-called smart-televisions have been particularlyproblematic, whether that has involved companies failing toencrypt sensitive data, to removing features if you refuse to haveyour daily viewing habits measured and monetized.

In February, Vizio joined this not-so-distinguished club when itwas discovered that the company's TVs had been spying on users forthe last several years. Vizio's $2.2 million settlement with theFTC indicates that the company at no time thought it might be agood idea to inform customers this was happening. The snoopingwas part of a supposed "Smart Interactivity" feature deployed in2014 that claimed to provide users with programmingrecommendations, but never actually did so. In short, it wasn'tso much what Vizio was doing, it was the fact the company tried tobullshit its way around it.

And while Vizio may have settled the FTC investigation into itssnooping televisions, the company now faces an additional classaction after a California federal judge denied the company'smotion to dismiss. The court ruled that Vizio customers' claimedinjuries were "sufficiently concrete" to bring suit under theVideo Privacy Protection and Wiretap Acts:

"Congress has determined that the interception of a person'selectronic communications and the unauthorized disclosure of aperson's video viewing history are sufficiently harmful to warrantprivate causes of action," and in response to Vizio's contentionthat the information it allegedly discloses is not personallyidentifiable, adds, "Taken to its logical conclusion, Defendants'argument absurdly implies that a court could never enter judgmentagainst a plaintiff on a VPPA claim if it found that the disclosedinformation was not within the statutory definition of personallyidentifiable information; instead, it would have to remand ordismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction."

U.S. District Court judge Josephine Staton also supported thelawsuit's claim of "highly offensive" conduct by Vizio byreiterating that the "Smart Interactivity" feature that did thespying was difficult to disable (impossible, initially), and wasoften reset after every Vizio firmware update:

"Plaintiffs point to a report by the security software companyAvast, which concluded that Smart Interactivity's "off" functionwas not operational "for months, if not years." So, even ifconsumers believed they had opted out of Vizio's data collectionpractices, Vizio was still collecting their data for aconsiderable period. In addition, Vizio's . . . SmartInteractivity software switches back on without warning if theSmart TV ever reverts to the factory settings -- as can occurthrough Vizio's software updates. Consumers would likely notrealize for a significant period that Vizio's collection anddisclosure software has been re-enabled because the opt-outfeature is allegedly buried in an obscure settings menu."

So many of these companies wouldn't be facing settlements andlawsuits if they'd simply been transparent about what they werecollecting in the first place. But time and time again we see"smart" IOT vendors trying to bullshit their way around whatthey're doing, bury settings that control privacy settings underlayers of intentionally intimidating menus, or simply refuseoutright to offer consumers working opt out tools in the firstplace.

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Crossings Mall Flooding------------------------------------------------------------Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that alawsuit filed on March 7 claims the bank responsible for fundingthe maintenance of Crossings Mall in Elkview was notified aboutneeded repairs to the center's sole entrance about six monthsbefore a June 2016 flood washed the culvert away.

The complaint against U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageServicing and Gold Coast Partners that was filed in Kanawha CountyCircuit Court on March 7 asks a judge to grant class-action statusfor those who were trapped at the Crossings Mall overnightimmediately following the flood and for the people downstream fromthe plaza who experienced flooding.

"There was a warning this would happen and it was a simple fix,"said Charleston lawyer Stuart Calwell, whose firm filed thelawsuit on behalf of George Leeson and Jacob Crum, both Elkviewresidents.

Mr. Leeson now lives in a trailer on the driveway of his property.His home is uninhabitable because of the flooding, according tothe complaint.

Mr. Crum was left stranded at the mall from the time of thecollapse of the culvert until 8 a.m. the next day.

The lawsuit states the defendants were negligent, careless andwrongful in maintaining the culvert.

"The Defendants, and each of them, were provided with actualknowledge of the necessity for repairs to the subject culvert, andfailed to undertake to make such repairs. The failure to act onthe warning was unreasonable and negligent," the complaint states.

The complaint also alleges that by refusing to spend what wasrequested to repair the culvert, the defendants "caused propertydamage to many people, shut down the center for months, deprivedthe community of an important resource, left many unemployed, and[showed] a complete lack of concern on their part for the wellbeing of the community."

The March 7 lawsuit doesn't include claims against mall owner TaraRetail Group, as it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January.Lawsuits filed while a company is in bankruptcy are put on hold.The bankruptcy, filed in the state's Northern District, canceled ascheduled trustee's sale of the mall and further delayedconstruction of a new bridge to access the shopping plaza.

The shopping center's property is the only large retail centerwithin a substantial radius around Elkview and, as the March 7complaint notes, is "a vital commercial center for residents inthe area" that still has no entrance about nine months after theflood.

According to the complaint, in Jan. 16, 2016, Gold Coast PartnersLLC, landlord and property manager of the mall, wrote to WellsFargo, in charge of the escrow account for maintenance and repairsat the shopping center, asking that $24,000 be issued to pay forrepair of the culvert -- over which the only entrance to theshopping center passed, and to repair the "dirt cliff" behindKMart.

"If these issues are not resolved immediately the only entrance tothe center could collapse and dirt could continue falling behindKmart, both scenarios could expose us, the Landlord, to personaland injury liability cases," states the letter from Gold CoastPartners, according to the complaint.

Wells Fargo did not authorize the repairs, the lawsuit alleges,and neither did any other company involved with the shoppingplaza.

"It's outrageous," Mr. Calwell said on March 7. "It's honest toGod, one of the most incredible things I've seen. There was acomplete failure by the responsible parties."

The Class consists of all current and former hourly paidrestaurant workers, who were employed by Defendant in Willie'sChicken Shack locations between November 26, 2013, and March 1,2017.

The Court directs the Defendants to provide the last known namesand addresses of the potential class members to the Plaintiffs'counsel within 14 days of the date of the Order. The Plaintiffs'counsel will distribute the notice and consent forms, in the formattached to the Parties' Joint Motion to the potential classmembers. The Defendants must post the notice at a locationvisible to employees, but not the public, at each of its Willie'sChicken Shack locations.

Potential class members will have 90 days from the date of mailingof the notice to opt in to the litigation as party plaintiffs.All other deadlines in the matter are stayed to allow the partiesto complete the opt-in process in the matter, and once the opt-inperiod is completed, the Court will set up a scheduling conferencewith the parties to discuss new deadlines.

* ABA Opposes Class-Action Reform Legislation---------------------------------------------Lee Rawles, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the American BarAssociation sent a letter on March 6 to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Judiciary Committee opposing class-action reformlegislation.

In the letter sent on behalf of the ABA, Director Thomas M. Susmanof the Governmental Affairs Office says that the legislation would"unnecessarily circumvent the Rules Enabling Act; make it moredifficult for large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seekredress in court; and place added burdens on an already overloadedcourt system."

H.R. 985, known as the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of2017, was introduced in February by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, aRepublican from Virginia. A previous, similarly named act,Fairness in Class Action Legislation Act of 2016, was also opposedby the ABA.

One of the new bill's amendments would require federal courts todeny class-action certification unless every one of the proposedclass members was affirmatively demonstrated to have "suffered thesame type and scope of injury" as the named plaintiffs or classrepresentatives.

"For example," Mr. Susman continued, "in a class action againstthe Veterans Administration, several veterans sued for a varietyof grievances centered on delayed claims. The requirement in thislegislation that plaintiffs suffer the same type of injuries mighthave barred these litigants from forming a class because eachplaintiff suffered harms that were not the same."

Another reason Mr. Susman cited for the ABA's opposition to thelegislation was that it would "circumvent the time-proven processfor amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established byCongress in the Rules Enabling Act" and potentially violate theseparation of powers. Mr. Susman points out that the JudicialConference of the United States is already in the process ofconsidering changes to class action guidelines, and that the U.S.Supreme Court's 2016 Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo decision would alsohave an impact on what conditions must be met for classes to becertified.

"Courts have the inherent authority to control the proceedings intheir courtrooms, including the power to regulate attorneys," theletter states. "Federal statutory changes in these areas wouldhave substantial adverse effects on the fairness, efficiency andtimeliness of relief under class action processes, ultimatelyusurping the traditional regulatory authority of the courts."

According to Mr. Susman, no hearings have been held to examine therule changes in the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of2017. He urged the Judiciary Committee "to hold at least onehearing" on the legislation before bringing it forward to floorconsideration.

Companies across multiple industries spent $2.17 billion defendingclass action lawsuits in 2016, accounting for 11.2 percent of alllitigation spending in the United States. These spendingincreases occurred even as the percentage of companies thatreported facing class actions on an on-going basis normalized to53.8 percent.

"There appears to be a trending increase in the magnitude of classactions, with companies facing increasingly higher risk andexposure," said Julianna McCabe, director of Carlton Fields' ClassAction Survey and chair of the firm's National Class Actionspractice group. "Understandably, companies are spending more tomanage that increased exposure."

* As the percentage of bet-the-company and high-risk classactions rose from 9.5 percent of matters in 2015 to 25.3 percentin 2016, the number of companies facing bet-the-company classactions doubled, from 8.3 percent in 2015 to 16.7 percent in 2016.Routine class actions also increased from 28 percent in 2015 to38.7 percent in 2016. In response to this increased activity atboth ends of the spectrum, fewer companies reported a "defend atthe right cost" philosophy, and more companies reported that theyfavor a philosophy of defending at "all costs" or by "going low."

* Even as spending rose, corporate legal departments continuedto use fewer in-house attorneys to manage their caseloads. As aresult, in-house lawyers spent more time managing these cases andcompanies increased their use of outside counsel.

* Consistent with the caseloads they are currently defending,companies report that wage and hour cases top the list as the mostanticipated next wave of class actions (25.9 percent ofrespondents), followed closely by Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct (TCPA) cases (22.2 percent).

* Early case assessment has increased every year since thesurvey was first conducted and is now the common practice of 98.1percent of all companies surveyed. Each year there is also anincrease in the number of companies that make a single individualaccountable for class action outcomes, from 38 percent in 2011 to62.2 percent in 2016.

* For the second straight year, fewer companies report usingalternative fee arrangements (AFAs) for class actions. Companiesare less likely to use AFAs for their high exposure cases as 13.2percent use them for bet-the-company matters compared to 32.1percent for routine cases.

Chris Coutroulis, a shareholder in the firm's National ClassAction practice, added: "Each year we see how the companies in theclass action survey evolve more sophisticated practices to managetheir cases."

The Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is widely recognized as apowerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage classactions effectively and efficiently. Results of the 2017 editionwere compiled from 387 in-depth interviews with general counsel,chief legal officers, and direct reports to general counsel of 373companies. Participating companies had average annual revenue of$13.8 billion and median annual revenue of $4.9 billion. Thesurveyed companies operate in more than 25 industries, includingbanking and financial services, consumer goods, energy, high tech,insurance, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, professional services,and retail.

About the Carlton Fields National Class Action Practice

Carlton Fields has litigated and counseled clients in hundreds ofclass actions for more than 30 years in federal and state courtsacross the nation, and in arbitrations. These cases presentunique challenges due to their different rules, enhanced scope,and higher stakes. The firm understands the potential impacts,costs, and risks associated with class actions, and is a leader indeveloping legal approaches and strategies for handling classaction litigation.

* Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act Aims to Stem MDL Abuses-----------------------------------------------------------------Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for LegalReform, in an article for The Hill, reports that fifty years ago,federal court rules were changed to establish the current form ofclass action lawsuits. That 1966 modification had the laudablegoal of making it easier for allegedly injured consumers sharingsmaller claims to seek recourse as a group. Unfortunately, overtime, entrepreneurial plaintiffs' lawyers have consistently abusedthe class action device, twisting its fundamental purpose.

Today, it is lawyers, not consumers, who are the mainbeneficiaries of class actions. In fact, the system has become sodysfunctional that the amount paid to lawyers in class actionsettlements is often many times the amount actually paid to all ofthe thousands, and sometimes millions, of class members combined.In some cases, lawyers get big fees, while class members get nomoney at all.

For example, in the settlement of a class action lawsuit against acomputer manufacturer for alleged false advertising, the classaction lawyers received fees of $7 million. That is 14 times whatthe entire class received, which was less than $500,000.

In a class action lawsuit against a beverage company for allegedlyimplying in its advertising that a product called "vitaminwater"was healthy, the class action lawyers were awarded $1.2 million infees. That is $1.2 million more than all of the class membersreceived. They got zero dollars.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (H.R. 985), whichpassed the House Judiciary Committee last month, would ensure thistype of abuse is eradicated so that alleged victims receive duecompensation. It would halt the current practice of courts payinglawyers their fees before the consumers they represent arecompensated. And it would limit attorneys' fees to a reasonablepercentage of the money that reaches class members' pockets. Inshort, it would ensure that the core purpose of class actions isto compensate allegedly injured consumers, not to make lawyersrich.

In that spirit, the bill would also require that before cases areallowed to proceed as class actions, lawyers demonstrate that theywould be able to identify class members and actually deliver tothem whatever money may be awarded in the litigation. Further, itwould bring into the sunshine the increasingly frequent practiceof lawyers secretly selling investments in class actions, givingaway class members' money without even telling them, let alonegetting their permission.

Many of the cases in these mass tort MDL proceedings are generatedby pervasive television/radio/internet advertising campaignssponsored by plaintiffs' law firms or non-lawyer third party"lead-generation companies." Such mass tort MDL lawsuits areflooding our federal courts. More than 119,000 are currentlypending, accounting for 35 percent of all civil cases in ourfederal court system nationwide.

Because MDL courts often don't allow close scrutiny of theseindividual claims, as would occur if litigated outside an MDLproceeding, advertisement-driven cases are often poorly vetted.Counsel just slap a person's name on a form complaint and file it.As one federal MDL judge recently observed in an opinionscathingly critical of the current situation, that means manymarginal if not downright bogus claims are being filed, cloggingthe system and preventing persons with legitimate claims fromgetting their day in court.

In one MDL proceeding settlement several years ago, it turned outthat more than 15,000 claimants -- almost one third of all theplaintiffs in the litigation -- were unable to show that they tookthe product at issue or experienced the adverse health event thatthe product allegedly caused. The Fairness in Class ActionLitigation Act would fix this problem by requiring that at theoutset, plaintiffs' lawyers submit evidence showing that they haveproperly investigated a claim and provide medical records showinginjury before the case can be transferred to an MDL.

The bill would also stop the illegitimate "tricks" that someplaintiffs' lawyers use to steer nationwide mass tort cases intostate court, even though these cases should be heard in federalcourt as a matter of federal diversity jurisdiction. Right now,some counsel direct these cases to a few "magnet" state courtsthat have no relationship to the parties of the litigation, but dohave laxer rules on expert evidence. This allows the plaintiffs'lawyers to present "junk science" evidence that would not bepermissible in federal courts, but leads to unjustified jackpotverdicts in these magnet state courts.

This kind of abusive forum shopping is what led Congress to expandfederal jurisdiction over interstate class actions 12 years ago.The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was bipartisan legislationthat passed the Senate on a vote of 72 to 26. Then-Sen. BarackObama (D-Ill.) and current Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer(D-N.Y.) were among 17 Democratic senators who voted for thatbill.

Abuses of class actions and mass tort proceedings are a hugeproblem for our federal court system, for consumers, and forbusinesses.

Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, writing for Center for American Progress,reports that President Donald Trump's budget proposal mayeliminate the single greatest funder of civil legal aid in theUnited States, the Legal Services Corporation -- a long-standinggoal of Vice President Mike Pence. At the same time, Congress isworking to block Americans from seeking justice on their own withthe Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. This billwas drafted to address an imaginary problem; if it passes, it willhave very real, devastating consequences.

For those who face systemic corporate abuses and failures ofgovernment, class action lawsuits are a critical tool for seekingjustice. Through a class action, a few people or organizationscan represent a larger group that has been harmed in a lawsuitagainst the perpetrator to seek a remedy, whether a change inpractices or monetary damages. Actions that aim to force actorsto change their behavior -- for example, to follow the law orcease a bad practice -- are referred to as seeking injunctiverelief.

Currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee asH.R. 985, this proposal would make it more difficult for people toseek relief or compensation when they have been mistreated bycorporations or government agencies. Specifically, this bill wouldmake it harder for people to form a class by narrowing thecriteria for banding together to bring a case and complicating --as well as delaying -- the process for collecting attorneys' fees,making it riskier for attorneys to take on class actions to helpthose who have been harmed.

The bill's proponents and its sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),claim the legislation would prevent so-called lawyer-drivenlitigation, or litigation meant to enrich lawyers rather thanadvance plaintiffs' interests. But the measures by which itpurports to do so just make bringing class actions more difficultaltogether. Moreover, if the object is to prevent lawyers fromunjust enrichment, the bill would not target the types of casesthat aim only to change practices rather than secure damages. Butit does just that -- and more.

Making it harder to form a class

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would require eachclass member to have suffered the "same type and scope of injury."This impractical criterion unnecessarily limits who can sue. Manyor most classes in class actions include members who have not beeninjured but could have been. Moreover, to require the same typeand scope of injury all but ends class action as a category: Thesame type of abuse affects different people in different ways.That is why the Supreme Court has explicitly held that classmembers need not have suffered the same damage to benefit from aclass action. In the class action case brought by retired NFLplayers who suffered neurocognitive injuries as a result ofrepeated concussions, for example, the players suffered a widevariety of complications, from Parkinson's disease to Alzheimer'sdisease.

People with different types of disabilities who experienced thesame problem differently and have a shared interest in relief haveroutinely joined together in class actions. For example, peoplewith mobility-related disabilities may bring suit as a group toensure accessible sidewalks and transportation or to get access topolling places. In Massachusetts, five residents who wereeligible for but had not received Medicaid services were able tosue on behalf of all other adults with intellectual ordevelopmental disabilities then waiting on services. To requirestrict similarity among class members would make it exceedinglydifficult for people in these critical cases to get the justicethey deserve.

Hindering advocates

This legislation would also make it riskier for lawyers to bringclass action cases. Among other things, the bill would pegattorneys' fees in injunctive cases to "a reasonable percentage ofthe value" of the relief. But how can a court calculate themonetary value of an order to require wheelchair access or theimplementation of a nondiscrimination policy?

By setting a functionally incalculable standard for attorneys'fees unrelated to the amount of time and work invested in a case,the bill makes it risky for lawyers to take on cases seekinginjunctive relief. That rules out many suits under legislationsuch as the Americans with Disabilities Act that aim to improvepeople's lives going forward by forcing reforms rather thanseeking compensation for harms already done.

The act would also condition the payment of attorneys' fees onfull monetary recovery. In practice, this provision couldeffectively deny attorneys their fees altogether. Defendantswould have an incentive to prolong litigation to make continuingunaffordable. And even after a case is resolved, the term of asettlement may stretch on for years. In the NFL concussion case,for example, the settlement will take 65 years. The threat ofnever receiving attorneys' fees or waiting years to collect themwould be a terrific deterrent to prospective counsel who count onattorneys' fees to pay staff and maintain their practices.

Like all workers, lawyers deserve to be paid in a timely andefficient fashion. And like all employers or businesses, advocacyorganizations and law firms that represent plaintiffs must counton income to pay employees. This legislation would make itimpossible for lawyers to predict how much they will be paid andwhen. This would make lawyers less likely to take on criticalcases, delaying justice for victims and allowing corporations andother bad actors to continue their harmful practices.Conclusion

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 is just thelatest in a series of congressional and executive actions thatwill precipitously widen the justice gap -- the gap between legalneeds and services available. The White House budget office ispreparing to propose the elimination of the Legal ServicesCorporation, and under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the U.S.Department of Justice is not likely to enforce criticallegislation -- such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and theFair Housing Act -- on Americans' behalf. Sessions has alreadyannounced his intention to limit civil rights actions against lawenforcement. Moreover, President Trump's nominee to the SupremeCourt, Judge Neil Gorsuch, may be pro-defendant when it comes toruling on class action issues, and he outright opposes lawsuits toenforce civil rights statutes.

Without help from government, the ability to seek justice throughother means -- such as class action suits -- will be more criticalthan ever. But if it passes, H.R. 985 will represent a major steptoward closing off even this limited avenue that allows Americansto pursue justice on their own -- and the consequences will bedevastating.

* House Set to Vote on Asbestos Claim Transparency Act------------------------------------------------------Tim Devaney and Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, report thatthe House is expected to take up legislation to set new limits onclass action lawsuits.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act is headed to the floorfor a vote. The bill requires proof that each proposed member ofa class action lawsuit has the same extent of injuries before thelawsuit can be certified by a federal court.

When the bill passed the House in January 2016 in a 211 to 188vote, it had another piece of legislation attached to it -- TheFurthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act. That bill created newrequirements for asbestos victims seeking compensation through thecourt system.

The joint legislation never made it to the Senate.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has nowreintroduced the class action bill without the asbestos claimslegislation.

In a statement, Mr. Goodlatte said the legislation is needed toaddress abuses in class action litigation.

"Today, the class action litigation system has morphed into anexpensive enterprise where lawyers are often the only winners, andAmerican businesses and consumers are the losers," he said.

The bill also prohibits judges from approving class actions if thelawyer representing the class is a relative of a party in theclass action suit. It also requires that class action lawyersonly get paid after the victims and orders any third-party fundingagreement to be disclosed to the court.

The House is also expected to vote on the Lawsuit Abuse ReductionAct, which has a companion bill in the Senate. It would penalizelawyers who file baseless lawsuits. The House is also working onthe Innocent Party Protection Act, which would establish a uniformstandard for determining whether a defendant has been wronglyadded to a lawsuit.

On March 8, a House Science subcommittee was set also hold ahearing on regulating outer space.

The House Judiciary Committee was also set to hold a hearing thatsame day to examine proposed visa regulations by the Department ofHomeland Security.

* Investor Losses in Securities-Related Class Actions Rise----------------------------------------------------------Brian O'Connell, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that a newstudy shows investor losses in investment-related, class-actionlawsuits tripled in 2016. Given those figures, why are settlementrates at an all-time low?

Lawsuits tied to corporate merger cases topped the class-actionlawsuit financial categories list, although that may be due tostate-to-state court rulings on how class-action suits arestructured.

The record number of securities class-action cases in 2016 waslargely driven by merger-objection cases, with 88 such filings,said David Tabak, NERA's managing director. Federal merger-objection cases, which allege a breach of fiduciary duty bydirectors and officers, grew at the fastest rate since 2010.

"This recent growth is more likely due to state court decisionslimiting 'disclosure-only' settlements, rather than due toincreased merger-and-acquisition activity," Mr. Tabak added."Plaintiffs have begun to shift merger-objection cases to venuesoutside of Delaware, though the full extent of this trend remainsto be seen."

Don't Ignore Delaware

Securities experts say the impact of the "Delaware" scenarioshouldn't be understated.

What could be raising eyebrows among financial industry insidersis that, while financial damage claims rose significantly in 2016,lawsuit settlement amounts, such as insider trading and securitiesclass-action suits, were in decline. Almost 33 percent moreclass-action suits were dismissed than litigated and settled, theNERA report noted.

"The increased scrutiny of settlements has had a butterfly effect,while case filings may be up, settlement rates are down anddismissal rates are at an all-time high," Mr. Lewis stated. "Moreof these cases are being litigated and fewer are ending withquick-strike settlements."

While average class-action settlement figures rose by 35 percentin 2016, that figure is likely skewed by a few "top heavy"settlement amounts.

The average securities class-action settlement in 2016 was $72million, more than 35 percent greater than the inflation-adjusted2015 average settlement of $53 million.

But when you exclude the cases that settled for more than $1billion, the average securities' lawsuit settlement in 2016 was$43 million, about 19 percent below the 2015 average of $53million, wrote Kevin M. LaCroix, an attorney and executive vicepresident, at RT ProExec, an insurance intermediary firm, in arecent research note.Other Takeaways

Aside from the rise in class-action suits and declining settlementamounts, NERA offers some additional data takeaways from itsstudy:

* Section 11 allegations accounted for 20 filings in 2016, whichis approximately equal to the average rate since 2010, but 23percent lower than the rate of such filings in 2015.

* Filings continued to be concentrated in the Second and NinthCircuits -- with 87 case filings in the Ninth Circuit (a 20percent increase) and an all-time high of 72 filings in the SecondCircuit. Third Circuit filings reached 34, up from 21 in 2012.In the Fifth Circuit, 17 class actions were filed, the fewest infour years.

* The 300 federal securities class-action suits filed in 2016involved approximately 5.2 percent of U.S. publicly tradedcompanies. The average probability of a firm being targeted by a"standard" securities class action was 3.4 percent in 2016, onlyslightly higher than the recent average.

* 28 percent of the total securities class-action cases filed in2016 (85 cases) were brought against firms in the healthtechnology and services sector, almost double that of 2015.Finance sector filings made up 16 percent of total filings.

* In 94 percent of securities class actions filed in 2000-2016, amotion to dismiss was filed. Only 15 percent of class actionsfiled during this period reached a decision on a motion for classcertification.

* 674 securities class actions are pending in the federal system,a decrease from the high of 717 in 2005.

No doubt, securities class-action lawsuits are impacted by alaundry list of items, including state court decisions, regulatoryissues, and the reliable ebbs and flows of securities trading andasset losses, which all factor into the process.

But in 2016, at least, those investors looking for justice fromU.S. courts should get used to disappointment in the form of fewerdollars headed their way. But at least they'll have plenty ofcompany.

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,a coalition of more than 200 national advocacy organizationscharged by its diverse membership to promote and protect therights of all persons in the United States, we write to stronglyoppose H.R. 985, the so-called Fairness in Class Action LitigationAct of 2017. The bill will undermine the enforcement of thisnation's civil rights laws and upend decades of settled classaction law. This sweeping and poorly drafted legislation willcreate needless chaos in the courts without actually solving anydemonstrated problem. If enacted, it will have a chilling effecton people of color, the elderly, and others to bring civil rightsclass action suits.

The Leadership Conference believes that class actions are criticalfor the enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination inemployment, housing, education, and access to public areas andservices. As the Supreme Court has recognized, class actionsprovide "vindication of the rights of groups of people whoindividually would be without effective strength to bring theiropponents into court at all." Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). Courts have interpreted Rule 23 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, the federal class action rule,over decades and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has,through its deliberative process, reviewed and amended the rule toensure its fair and efficient operation. No further revisions areneeded at this time.

In addition, by considering this bill now, Congress iscircumventing the process that Congress itself established forpromulgation of federal court rules under the Rules Enabling Act,bypassing both the Judicial Conference of the United States andthe U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, the Judicial Conference alreadyhas an Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which is currentlymeeting to discuss possible changes to Rule 23. Interference withthe proper federal court rules process is reckless andirresponsible, particularly when this proposal is so damaging tovictims.

H.R. 985 Adds Years of Additional Delay, Expense, and Disruption

The bill allows for an automatic appeal -- in the middle of everycase -- of the class certification order. Such appeals areextraordinarily disruptive and typically add one to three years tothe life of the case. While the case sits in an appellate court,expenses and fees rise, memories fade, and injured victims remainwithout justice. Automatic appeals of all class certificationorders will clog our already-taxed Courts of Appeals. Appeals ofclass certification rulings are already permitted at thediscretion of the Courts of Appeals. An appeal of every classcertification ruling is unnecessary.

The bill similarly builds in an automatic stay of discovery in thedistrict court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any one of alist of motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship anddelay, and will deprive judges of the ability to properly managetheir cases.

The bill, by its terms, applies to all cases pending upon the dateof enactment. This means that hundreds of cases that have beenlitigated and certified under existing law would start fromscratch with new standards, new class certification motions, andnew automatic interlocutory appeals. The resulting waste ofjudicial resources would be enormous.

Civil Rights Injuries Are Never Identical and Are Already Subjectto Rigorous Judicial Review

H.R. 985 imposes a new and impossible hurdle for classcertification. It requires that the proponents of the classdemonstrate that "each class member has suffered the same type andscope of injury." At this early stage of a civil rights classaction, it is frequently impossible to identify all of the victimsor the precise nature of each of their injuries.

But even if this information were knowable, class members'injuries would not be "the same." As a simple example, thoseovercharged for rent will have different injuries. In anemployment discrimination class action, the extent of a classmember's injuries will depend on a range of factors, includingtheir job position, tenure, employment status, salary, and lengthof exposure to the discriminatory conditions. For this reason,the Supreme Court developed a two-stage process for such cases inInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S.324, 371-72 (1977). In the first stage, the court determineswhether the employer engaged in a pattern or practice ofdiscrimination. If the employer is found liable, the court holdsindividual hearings to determine the relief (if any) for eachvictim. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of theTeamsters model for discrimination class actions in part becauseof the individualized nature of injuries. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 366 (2011). Thus, this bill would overturnthe approach established four decades ago to permit a class ofvictims of discrimination to seek effective relief.

For the same reason, the bill's limitation on "issue classes" willimpede the enforcement of civil rights laws. Under currentpractice, the district court will decide in some cases that thebest approach is to resolve the illegality of a discriminatorypractice in an initial proceeding, and then allow class members topursue individual remedies on their own. In such cases, classcertification for the core question of liability (often a complexproceeding) will be tried and resolved just once for the benefitof the many affected individuals. These issue classes can promoteboth efficiency and fairness. The bill's proposed Section 1720,however, would deprive courts of this ability that they currentlyhave to manage class actions to ensure justice.

Requiring the Early Identification of Class Members Is Unnecessary

Section 1718 seeks to impose a heightened standard for identifyingclass members, an approach that has been rejected by the majorityof circuits to have considered the question. This stringentstandard would not further any interest that is not alreadyadequately protected by Rule 23, which requires that the courtconsider whether the case is manageable and the class actiondevice is the "superior" method for fairly and efficientlyresolving the case.

Moreover, Sec. 1718 would impose a nearly insurmountable hurdle insituations where a class action is the only viable way to pursuevalid but low-value claims. In such cases, records of who hasbeen affected may have been destroyed by the wrongdoer, may beincomplete, or may have never existed at all. In those cases,individual notice to all class members may be impossible. But,without class certification in these situations, class members whohave valid claims and who can be identified would not be allowedto recover. The bill also ignores the important objective ofdeterring and punishing wrongdoing, and encourages defendants notto maintain relevant records.

Civil rights class actions are often about systemic reforms thatbenefit the most vulnerable. In many cases, the sole remedy is aninjunction to change illegal laws or practices. To ensure thatnon-profit legal organizations and other advocates are able toundertake these important, complex, and often risky cases, dozensof our civil rights laws incorporate fee-shifting provisions. Ifa case is successful, the judge awards a reasonable fee based uponthe time that the advocates have spent working on the case. Thismethod of determining attorneys' fees provides for consistent andpredictable outcomes, which is a benefit to all parties in alawsuit.

H.R. 985 would entirely displace this well-settled law with astandard long ago rejected as arbitrary and unworkable. Under thebill, attorneys' fees would be calculated as a "percentage of thevalue of the equitable relief." Sec. 1718(b)(3). But how is ajudge to determine the cash value of an integrated school, a well-operating foster care system, the deinstitutionalization ofindividuals with disabilities, or myriad other forms of equitablerelief secured by civil rights class actions? Asking judges toassign a price tag in such cases is an impossible task and wouldlead to uncertainty and inconsistency.

Non-profit organizations cannot bear the risk of these long andexpensive cases if, at the end, their fees are calculated underthis incoherent and capricious standard. Indeed, the bill createsan incentive for defendants to prolong the litigation so as tomake it economically impossible for plaintiffs' attorneys tocontinue to prosecute the litigation.

When H.R. 985 comes to the floor this week, we strongly urge youto oppose this far reaching and flawed legislation that will denyaccess to justice for many and undermine the rule of law. If youhave any questions, please contact Mike Zubrensky, Chief Counseland Legal Director, at zubrensky@civilrights.org or (202) 869-0380, or Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, atzirkin@civilrights.org or (202) 466-3311.

Sincerely,

Wade HendersonPresident & CEO

Nancy ZirkinExecutive Vice President

* Some Features in Class Action Reform Bill Need Scrutiny---------------------------------------------------------Anthony Anscombe, Esq., and Mary Beth Buckley, Esq., of SedgwickLLP, in an article for Law360, report that the U.S. House ofRepresentatives currently has before it a bill -- H.R. 985 --intended to "diminish abuses in class action and mass tortlitigation that are undermining the integrity of the U.S. legalsystem."

As class action defense practitioners, we have seen firsthand alot of these class action abuses -- plaintiffs who buy productsfor the sole purpose of filing law suits; plaintiffs who fileidentical lawsuits on a serial basis; class counsel who makeexorbitant fee demands for little work; and defendants who settletruly meritless claims because of the in terrorem effect of classlitigation.

Class action litigation absolutely needs reform, but there areseveral features of this legislation that require very carefulscrutiny. Plaintiffs will argue for interpretations that couldperpetuate existing problems and create new ones.

Here, like a game of whack-a-mole, H.R. 985 may do more to shiftthe burden of class litigation than to lighten it. It also mayreduce the personal autonomy of class members, and transform theclass device from a compensatory one (in theory, at least) to apunitive one.

That means plaintiff class action lawyers have millions of reasonsto attack litigation reform, and to figure out ways to get aroundit.

Here, we predict some of the things they will say about threeimportant features of this bill, and some additional things thatdefendants should worry about.

Class Action Injury Allegations

A centerpiece of H.R. 985 is a carry-over of a bill approved bythe House last year, but which stalled in the Senate. It providesthat a court should not certify a class unless the party seekingcertification "affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed classmember suffered the same type and scope of injury as the namedclass representative or representatives."

A defense reading of this provision would see an attempt toenshrine in statute some of the holdings of Comcast v. Behrend --a certified class should not contain uninjured members, and thefact and amount of damages within the class should matter to thequestion of class certification. But the statutory language couldleave room for argument by class counsel that H.R. 985 actuallyhas changed very little.

Plaintiffs will argue that "the same type and scope of injury"refers to injury-in-fact in the constitutional sense, and thatSpokeo recognizes that even abstract injuries causing no monetaryharm will satisfy this standard. They will also argue that undermany of the statutes that foment class litigation, such asCalifornia's UCL and Federal Statutes like FCRA and TCPA, H.R.985's injury requirement will be satisfied any time a plaintiff isexposed to the defendant's conduct.

And, from the standpoint of damages, plaintiffs will argue thatnearly any case brought under a consumer fraud statute will meetthis requirement. Specifically, they will argue, as they do now,that benefit of the bargain damages uniformly exist among classmembers, on the theory that purchase prices were inflated becauseof the defendant's malfeasance.

If these types of arguments prevail, H.R. 985 may have only a verymodest impact on stemming class litigation.

Conflicts of Interest

Another important section of H.R. 985, "Conflicts of Interest,"prohibits the certification of a class "in which any proposedclass representative or named plaintiff is a relative of, is apresent or former employee of, is a present or former client of,or has any contractual relationship with class counsel."

Most courts already take the position that class representativeswith close ties to class counsel, such as familial or employment,have conflicts of interest that render them inadequate torepresent the class. This provision could, however, put a seriousdent in the practice of certain class counsel who, time and again,file cases listing the same class representatives.

For example, plaintiffs in TCPA cases will often appear repeatedlyas class representatives. These are the plaintiffs who view theirfax machines as gift that keeps on giving, spigots that pour out$500 bills every time an improper fax arrives.

We expect that class counsel and their clients will raiseconstitutional objections to this section of H.R. 985, but if itis upheld, clever counsel may find ways around it. For example,plaintiff firms that focus on repetitive case work, such as TCPAclaims, may band together to share clients, somewhat like a linedance -- dance once and then move down to the next partner.

More concerning is how this section might intersect with the ClassAction Fairness Act. Currently, defendants can remove diversitycases where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

If H.R. 985 forbids the certification of cases based on apreexisting relationship between class counsel and the classrepresentative, plaintiffs may contend that the amount incontroversy cannot be met and the case should stay in state court.They will argue that, as a matter of law, a federal court cannotcertify a class, and therefore only the class representative'sindividual claim can be considered in evaluating thejurisdictional amount.

Defendants will argue that the amount in controversy is still met,regardless of the impossibility of certification, just as it wouldbe in other kinds of cases that lack merit. Also, class counselmay substitute class representatives once a case gets to federalcourt, such that a decision to reach certification briefing withan ineligible class representative would be a self-inflictedwound.

Overall, this section of H.R. 985 will create some new areas ofcontroversy, and may slow down the onslaught of certain kinds ofcases, but probably will not have a big impact on the tide ofclass litigation.

Class Member Benefits

Anyone who has followed class litigation in recent years knowsthat one of the hottest controversies is whether classes have tobe "ascertainable," such that class members can be identifiedthrough an "administratively feasible" method.

There are many good reasons for an ascertainability requirement,and H.R. 985 offers the salutary provision that the party seekingcertification must demonstrate that "there is a reliable andadministratively feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determinewhether putative class members fall within the class definition. .. ."

Of course, circuit courts such as the 7th and 9th have alreadybeen very confident in their assessment that courts can developinnovative procedures for ascertaining almost any class defined byobjective criteria, but H.R. 985's endorsement of "administrativefeasibility" should cast doubt on class member self-identificationas an acceptable practice.

All would be well if this is where H.R. 985 stopped, but it goeson to provide "and (b) for distributing directly to a substantialmajority of class members any monetary relief secured for theclass." This "direct distribution" language appears again inanother section of HR 985, relating to the reporting of settlementpayments to the Federal Judicial Center. It suggests that theHouse wants to see automatic payment of settlement and/or judgmentmonies, with no claims process.

It is unclear whether this provision would apply to voucher andcoupon settlements, but regardless, it may significantly raise thestakes in class litigation. It will also deprive absent classmembers of an important right -- the right to remain uninvolved.

First, as pragmatic matter, plaintiffs, defendants and judges allknow that the vast majority of absent class members do not makeclaims against settlement funds or class judgments. This is veryhelpful when it comes to resolving cases, as the face value of asettlement or judgment almost always exceeds its actual value.

It also reduces class action risk, in that the amount of adefendant's financial exposure ultimately depends on the actuallevel of interest shown by class members in recovering money.Residual funds usually remain with or revert to the defendant,with perhaps some form of "cy pres" distribution for a portion ofthe residual balance.

H.R. 985 will bring verdict value and actual value into closeralignment. A defendant's willingness to settle for sumsostensibly close to the value of each class member's individualclaim will go down because the multiplier will go up. This does adisservice to individual class members who otherwise would havecared enough to submit claims.

And the value of certified classes will go up, as class counselwill have less flexibility to settle claims for discounts withoutfacing allegations that they sold out the class. Trials are muchmore likely, and verdicts will be all or nothing.

Second, the issue of personal autonomy is a serious one. Classlitigation is not universally popular. There are many reasons whyclaims rates are low. Claims processes give class members a chanceto vote. Many vote "no," and do so for good reasons. Forexample, class members do not support the class action based onpolitical, economic or personal reasons. Some do not find thereward worth the effort of submitting a claim.

The case may involve matters of personal privacy (think AshleyMadison, or the use of medications or products that class membersdo not wish to broadcast). Many class members know that they werenot, in fact, misled or harmed, and they do not fault thedefendant. For example, many class members could care less whethertheir "natural" breakfast cereal contained a GMO, or whether theirolive oil actually came from Italy as opposed to anotherMediterranean country.

H.R. 985's "direct payment" provision threatens to increase, notreduce, the in terrorem effect of class actions. The paltrynature of most of the offenses that underlie class actions, andthe low dollar amount of alleged harm, are big reasons why classactions pose such risk to defendants.

Companies know that they should not poison or rob people, but in ahighly regulated economy, their moral radars are less focused onwhether the contents of their cans of tuna should be weighed in acertain way, or that faxing a take-out menu to neighborhoodbusinesses is forbidden by the TCPA.

Yet such cases may survive the new hurdles imposed by H.R. 985,and if they do, the multiplier effect of those class claims couldpose a more serious threat than they already do.

Above all, by awarding money to people who otherwise would notcare enough to claim it, H.R. 985 will impose a punitive burden ondefendants. Rule 23 is an outcome-neutral procedural device.Compelling direct payment to people who do not feel sufficientlyaggrieved to make a claim will go a long way to transforming classcertification from a device that facilitates payment to interestedindividuals, to a device that punishes defendants for conduct thatis rarely culpably in any moral sense.

Unintended Consequences

It is too optimistic to expect that clever plaintiff lawyers willthrow up their hands in surrender, opting for new careers indentistry or insurance. Instead, they will seek ways to doubledown on defendants that keep records which make classes"ascertainable" -- retailers, telecoms, financial institutions andother service providers.

They will look for ways to shift class litigation to state court,such as by using repeat class representatives. They will findways around the "conflict of interest" rules. And for viableclass action claims filed in federal court, the direct paymentprovision of H.R. 985 will strengthen class counsels' hands todrive harder bargains.

Perhaps this is what H.R. 985's drafters intended. We doubt it.Now would be a good time to make sure that the statutory languageis ineluctably clear, and to consider additional or alternativemeasures that would help class rein in class litigation. Abolitionof "incentive fees" and cy pres would be good places to start.

So too would provisions to facilitate the opt out process, makingexclusion as near to effortless as possible. Legal rights areusually individual, not collective, and effective class actionreform should facilitate choice among class members who prefer tobe left alone.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.